What Google's recent product stops teach us about entrepreneurship

Read Time:9 Minute, 0 Second

THE MOST IMPORTANT OVERVIEW

Learn more about the complex balance of opportunity and risk in Google’s intrapreneurship culture: Below, we analyze the ebb and flow of the company’s most ambitious projects—lessons that resonate throughout the Google graveyard.

Google’s approach to product development has always been one of exploration and calculated risk. The tech giant has created groundbreaking products like Android and Google Chrome that have achieved near-dominance in their respective markets through intrapreneurship.

With intrapreneurship, leaders can drive innovation within their organization by harnessing the entrepreneurial spirit of their employees. Think of it as an internal playground for creativity.

Google’s Gmail is a great example of how small ideas can become revolutionary solutions in large corporations. But this culture of innovation often goes hand in hand with the discontinuation of projects.

The end of Google Podcasts and Jamboard

The latest victims of this strategy – Google Podcasts and Google Jamboard – point to a larger trend within the tech giant to consolidate and focus its offerings.

Google Podcasts features will be integrated into YouTube Music, marking a strategic pivot to align podcasting with a more established and popular platform.

YouTube Music’s increasing focus on podcasts underscores the growing importance of spoken audio content and brings the worlds of music and podcasts together into a unified audio experience.

The closure of Google Jamboard, a 55-inch digital whiteboard for education and work, raises questions about Google’s commitment to niche hardware projects.

It’s not just about reducing losses; these decisions often reflect Google’s evolving understanding of user behavior and market trends.

However, the abrupt end of the services has raised doubts among some businesses and private users about the long-term viability of Google’s newer initiatives.

The Google graveyard is quickly approaching 300 failed or canceled projects in its 25-year history. Many are beginning to wonder whether the tech giant is having trouble with its commitment.

Let’s look back through the rose-colored glasses of nostalgia and consider why Google abandoned so many of its software and hardware projects.

How Google+ sank due to security breaches and low engagement

Google+ was released in 2011 and was supposed to be the next big thing in social networking . Despite the built-in features and ability to link to other Google services, the platform never caught on.

It was bundled with popular Google services such as YouTube and Google Drive, and introduced innovative features such as “Circles” for sorting contacts and “Hangouts” for video chats.

Nevertheless, Google+ found it difficult to attract users from already established platforms such as Facebook.

Despite being hailed as the next Facebook, engagement remained low. Many people with Google+ accounts through their Gmail or YouTube accounts didn’t even know they had one or weren’t actively using it.

Some compared it to a gym where everyone has a membership but no one visits.

To make matters worse, Google+ also suffered a serious setback when there were significant data breaches in 2018 in which user data was exposed.

While Google cited “low usage” and “challenges in maintaining a successful product” as reasons for shutting down Google+, these security flaws accelerated the platform’s demise.

The first breach led to an advanced plan to shut down the service by April 2019.

Unfortunately, Google+ serves as a case study in how even a tech giant like Google can fail to capture social engagement when competing against established competitors.

And how security problems can hasten the demise of an already struggling service.

5 billion downloads and yet forgotten: the paradox of Google Hangouts

Google Hangouts has had a roller coaster ride: it was very successful at first, but then it started to decline.

After launching in 2011, it quickly became the first choice for users thanks to its simple design and numerous features such as text, voice and video chats. With 5 billion downloads, it seemed to be a hit.

But that changed in 2016 when Google released Allo, a new and more sophisticated chat app with built-in Google Assistant.

Over the next five years, Google launched four more apps to replace Hangouts until it finally merged into Google Chat in 2022.

The decline of Hangouts can be attributed to several reasons. A key factor was Google’s tendency to chase exciting new launches rather than sticking with and optimizing existing products.

This caused Hangouts to be sidelined and eventually discontinued, ending the ups and downs of the tech giant’s line of social tools.

Ahead of the curve: the unfulfilled promise of Google Glass

When Google Glass launched in 2013, it immediately wowed the tech community with its promise of bringing augmented reality into everyday life.

Even before it was publicly available, TIME Magazine declared it one of the best inventions of 2012, further fueling the hype surrounding its release.

Fashion magazine Vogue even dedicated a 12-page issue to Google Glass – a sign that the device had captured public opinion on multiple levels.

Despite the initial excitement, Google Glass quickly became embroiled in controversy ranging from privacy concerns to its $1,500 price tag.

These problems were exacerbated by unfortunate incidents such as: For example, users have been stopped while driving for wearing the glasses, arrested for using the device in movie theaters, and users have been referred to as “glassholes.”

Aside from the PR nightmare, the device’s limitations and poor battery life made it impractical for everyday use.

Google Glass quickly went from a symbol of technological innovation to a chilling example.

In 2015, Google announced the discontinuation of the consumer version and limited its use to enterprise applications.

Although the device continued to be used in specialized industrial or medical areas, the breakthrough among consumers that Google had hoped for did not materialize.

Still, it’s important to note that Google’s early foray into augmented reality technology has paved the way for other companies to explore similar projects.

Today, with the public more open to smart glasses, one could argue that Google Glass was ahead of its time and offers lessons on the challenges and opportunities of wearable technology.

Perhaps the upcoming release of the Apple Vision Pro, priced at $3,499, will show whether Google was ahead back then or whether history will repeat itself.

Why Google Play Music couldn’t beat Spotify

Google’s foray into the world of music streaming started promisingly with Google Play Music.

The service became known for its unique feature that allowed users to upload their existing music library.

This was a free alternative to subscription-based models; You could even buy songs for a certain period of time like on iTunes.

However, Google’s ambitions did not end there: the company wanted to compete directly with Spotify and Apple Music.

To achieve this, it renamed Google Play Music to YouTube Music in 2020 and touted several supposed benefits, such as access to remixes, covers and live versions of songs, as well as AI -driven personalized recommendations.

Despite these features, YouTube Music couldn’t beat Spotify or Apple Music in terms of user retention and loyalty.

Meanwhile, Google’s other Play apps also suffered a similar fate: Play Movies & TV was converted into Google TV in 2021 and ultimately discontinued last year.

This series of changes and closures also shows how difficult it is for Google to penetrate markets where, despite its innovative efforts, there are already strong incumbents.

The Achilles heel of cloud gaming: Stadia’s latency challenges

Stadia’s journey from its bold founding to its unfortunate end in 2023 is a compelling case study in the dangers and complexities of technological disruption in the highly competitive gaming industry.

On the surface, Google’s approach was refreshingly new: using cloud computing to democratize access to games, minimize hardware dependencies, and lower the cost of entry for consumers.

They envisioned a future where blockbuster games could be streamed as quickly as Netflix shows and required nothing more than a solid internet connection.

Their partnerships with industry giants such as Ubisoft and Rockstar Games indicated a strong commitment to the fight for market share and customer trust.

However, the project was associated with a number of problems. First and foremost was the need for stable, high-speed internet – a requirement that proved to be a significant barrier to access for a significant proportion of potential users.

In the United States alone, an estimated 42 million people do not have the necessary internet infrastructure.

Additionally, Stadia’s value proposition has been undermined by a meager portfolio of exclusive content and the inherent risk consumers face when investing in cloud-based titles.

To make matters worse, the platform’s performance fluctuations became its Achilles heel; Latency and reliability issues in practice too often undermined the theoretical promise of smooth gaming.

Google’s ultimate decision to discontinue Stadia is a sobering reminder that even the most visionary technical solutions can falter if they don’t align with current consumer readiness, market conditions, or infrastructure realities.

However, Google’s gracious handling of the end of the platform – full refunds to users – shows a customer-focused sense of responsibility that, while not saving Stadia itself, can mitigate the damage to its image and provide important lessons for future technological innovation.

Conclusion

Google’s approach to innovation is like rapid-fire brainstorming: you throw several ideas on the table and see which ones prevail. This strategy embodies agility, but is not without its downsides.

Many are beginning to question the company’s commitment to long-term product development after being disappointed by investments in Google’s long list of abandoned platforms.

Of course, we rarely think about Google when we listen to music, enjoy podcasts, play games, or chat with friends online.

While the tech giant is known for releasing products ahead of their time, it has a hard time making an impact in areas where people are already very active.

The discontinuation of products such as Google Glass, Stadia and Hangouts prompts a critical look at the tech giant’s culture of innovation. It is a complex story marked by both triumph and caution.

Google’s willingness to take risks is part of its DNA, a culture of entrepreneurship that creates breakthrough technologies.

But here lies the paradox: the thrill of the birth of the “next big thing” can sometimes overshadow the care required for sustainability and user loyalty.

So can a company be too innovative? Google’s product discontinuations serve as a learning laboratory for the company and the entire technology landscape.

They show the balancing act between market readiness, sustainable development and user loyalty.

These product discontinuations should be viewed not just as missteps, but as milestones in Google’s innovation journey – a path full of discoveries and lessons.

Ultimately, this ongoing story is an important case study for anyone interested in the future of technology.

It highlights the need to strike a balance between unbridled innovation and the equally important task of long-term product stewardship