Reader derangement syndrome strikes again. Summarizing the thread, if you're are an early adopter of anything, you run the risk it won't be here in a year. That's what we tolerate in the tech arena, start ups throwing lots of good and dumb ideas at the wall to see what sticks, evolution in action. How many people who built their business on Facebook's F8 platform went belly up due to changes?
Google is a company that is constantly experimenting with new products and services. Yes, some of them will fail. That's the cost of innovation. It's really sad we've forgotten that. Failure is an acceptable risk to move forward. If you're risk averse, leave the opportunity to others to jump in and place their bets if Helpouts is a winning platform for them.
The problem is not a history of killing failed product, it's a history of killing products that everyone is actually using, without giving it as much of a chance as a company of Google's resources might be expected to, for political reasons rather than practical reasons.
As a couple of good examples: Google Wave was created to give the Rasmussen brothers (creators of Google Maps) something high-profile to do. Then it was launched in a disastrously bad way (closed beta? for a new communication tool meant to replace email?). Then as adoption started to build (but not quick enough to satisfy the political needs of the project), Wave was yanked after just a year.
Google Reader became a cornerstone of the web's infrastructure, a public utility service that cost comparatively little, returned perhaps little other than good will, but ultimately served a purpose for millions of users. But that wasn't enough for Google, so they yanked it.
In both cases, there was no real alternative path offered. Google just made an internal political decision to yank a project, and that's that. The public never even got the option to try and support the project.
Based on the above and other less high-profile examples, I'm not willing to invest my time as an early adopter in a company that has the deep pockets to fund long-shot projects, but doesn't have the balls to follow them through to their exciting conclusions.
Google Wave was a very exciting development with a lot of promise. Google Reader could have been evolved further and become an even more important piece of infrastructure, with all the good will associated with that. Instead, both are now black splotches on Google's reputation, in my view at least.
It's certainly an acceptable risk for Google and other companies like FB - the short-term cost of innovation for Google is pretty close to zero. The long-term cost of reputation is perhaps something they're only now starting to realise.
Whether it's an acceptable risk for the users of these services is up to them, and many of them are deciding it is not, because these services can be so easily closed. Sounds fair to me.
I don't think anyone's forgotten the cost of innovation, they're simply aware that the costs of it are borne by users, not by Google.
I don't think anyone's forgotten; we forgive small companies for trying-and-failing to do something cool all the time. For some reason, though, we (as an angry mob) seem to be incapable of allowing big companies to try-and-fail at exactly the same sorts of things.
(Personally, I think it might have something to do with how ancestral-environment humans saw leaders making promises as mostly a chance to tear them down from their dominant positions.)
Part of the problem is also in the way that Google kills things. They generally don't attempt to sell it, open it up, or spin it off, etc. You just wake up one day and it's dead (or announced as soon-to-be so).
Another example is their Google Affiliate Network, a product they acquired as part of their ValueClick acquisition. There were tons of businesses using it on both the advertiser and affiliate sides. This usage included heavy integrations, reporting, API access, product catalogs, etc. They suddenly announced that they were killing it within a couple of months.
There was no attempt to sell it, assist customers with migration, or otherwise provide some continuity for customers. Google seems to have no sense of responsibility that people and businesses are depending on their services. Their M.O. is to just get people to "invest" in Google products/services and entrust their own businesses to Google, then pull the rug from under them when it no longer suits Google.
It's a problem, and the reputation they are receiving is well-earned.
Having a product disappear while you're using it is more of a risk when you invest a lot of your time into it. If Gmail disappeared with a month's notice, a lot of people would be forced to spend hours or days migrating their data and settings. If Google Search disappeared overnight, people could just use Bing.
This seems fairly transactional and thus fairly low-risk, although on the help provider side there's probably a reputation system which will become meaningless when the product is shut down.
This would help with the times I've just wanted to ask someone "so, does this shirt actually go with these pants, or am I totally crazy?"
All joking aside, this could be interesting. It makes me think of that service that existed for a while where you could ask a question of a topic area, and it would send an IM to people and ask them to answer it. I forget what it was called, but I used it for a little while.
The payment/HIPAA compliance aspect are pretty interesting, too. I would easily throw $50 at a 10 minute consult with a doctor instead of having to make an appointment and haul myself in to the local clinic. Particularly if said doctor could then fax a prescription for something completely boring but still not OTC to my local pharmacy.
Said doctor should come to you, as is customary in many countries. Instead, in the US you have to drag your sick self in to see a physician. And pay a boatload for a 5 minute consult; ridiculous.
>I would easily throw $50 at a 10 minute consult with a doctor instead of having to make an appointment and haul myself in to the local clinic.
I remember hearing an NPR report recently about some doctors running their private practice similar to that. They were basically operating on a subscription model - they would come see you if needed, but for quick consults and the like, they'd do things like Skype calls to talk with their patients. Struck me as a very interesting idea.
EDIT:
This isn't the report I'm thinking of, but it's very similar:
You should consider http://coinmd.org then. They're cheaper and seem to give really good advice so far. It's anonymous for doctors though, so of course, there's a risk in that. However, I read through their faq and find their policy of selecting and working with doctors quite convincing.
An interesting new avenue for Google, where the results and satisfaction are entirely subjective, according to perception of the customer.
With search results or Gmail they can hand-wave away dis-satisfaction my saying the 99th percentile are happy, but this is one-on-one. I can see the Money Back Guarantee being quite a support burden.
But why are Google doing this? It's not really "organizing the World's information" because it keeps knowledge compartmentalised in the 'experts'.
it is helping to make information universally accessible, which is part of the company's mission. lots of information cannot get organized yet because it's still contained inside people's minds. if you see each individual as an information source -- much like a website -- then helpouts is organizing the information by lumping the sources into well-defined categories and showing when that "information" is available as well as its quality.
This feels like "online tutoring to me". And as far as tutoring goes, I feel like most of the time it's better to automate it. Like using treehouse instead of getting a programming tutor.
I could see some situations where it'd be useful though.
- If you have a quick question and are really frustrated and are willing to pay.
- Sometimes you care a lot or have a lot of money, and are willing to get a tutor.
- Some things (like doctor appointments) might be better served online than in person.
For anyone interested in a tech specific version of this there is a site http://anyfu.com/ (I'm a fan but not associated).
I believe this model for connecting people for very brief engagements over the internet is an interesting one. With the educational model being pushed by companies like Coursera I could see something like this becoming popular for access to tutors or even peers studying the same subject. For quick help solving a problem there is obviously a problem of getting to sufficient scale in a 2-sided market place. Perhaps google will achieve that. I suppose the risk is becoming the yahoo answers or the expersexchange of the space.
My initial reaction is "cool, but I won't use it as it'll be shutdown soon enough". I wonder if enough people avoid new Google products due to shutdown fears so it leads to a product ultimately being shutdown due to neglect.
>> "My initial reaction is "cool, but I won't use it as it'll be shutdown soon enough"."
Why? It's not like you have to invest anything into the service (building a network, creating a profile etc.etc.) and it doesn't seem like a tool that is meant to become part of your workflow (e.g. reader). Also, if Helpouts goes away these 'experts' will still be available somewhere - you could schedule appointments directly.
> I wonder if enough people avoid new Google products due to shutdown fears [...]
I doubt it. That attitude is mostly a HN/geek thing. I like that they're willing to try things and test for viability in the real world. I'd rather have something and for it go away than to never have it at all. (And yes, I do understand the frustrations with Reader but I wouldn't go back in time and never use it from the start)
The idea of a marketplace for experts is intriguing. I can't imagine this will ever work well, though.
- Google is presently curating this list, approving everyone who would be a provider. This is fine for launch, but this obviously needs to scale.
- From a functional standpoint, this is the Human App Store. How do I, the provider, promote myself among thousands of search results for underwater-basket-weaving experts?
- Race to the bottom: I don't associate Google with any sort of premium pricing model. If I think my services are worth more than the low-cost providers, but I'm one of a thousand providers, am I going to have to go the only other route Google tends to provide -- paid advertising placement?
The idea is interesting, but I don't think Google will ever position it to be helpful to anyone but users and themselves.
So this is a solution to the "problem" of people looking up how to do something on youtube, now you can ask an expert and get detailed two-way feedback.
It's interesting that Google seems to be moving into the freelance space. I wonder if they're going to stay in the limited fashion, or expand to go after Odesk etc.
Personally I really love this idea, but isn't anyone else seriously concerned that Google is taking over the whole `World's Information Economy`?
I think BuyOuts should be regulated, this could help the whole industry and econmy.
Google should probably be fined with multi billion penalties for using their monopoly power.
• ISP's with Google Fiber
• PayPal and Banking Industry → Google Wallet + Google Checkout
• Automobile Industry → Google Car
• TelCo's → Android+Nexus (a google plan soon?)
• Small Businesses in "successfull niche sectors" → BuyOuts
• RIAA, Music and Video Industry → Google Play
• Energy Industry → "Energy startup" BuyOuts
• Spy Agencies → =sumOf(Google Products)
• …And even more that I've not listed, or that is to come…
--
IMHO:
(Services stealing the market of businesses, who lost their job or company should be paid their loss. Services not focusing on their main product should be forced to get closed, or get opened up to the public. I know this is very harsh and I don't think that all of this is necessary or should really be done, but someone has to stop Google from acting so dominantly and strategically. They're aiming for world leadership, nothing less and are killing every enemy sector, one by one. This is not a paranoid act of me to boycott Google. I use their services every day. But I don't want them to kill every other sector, just because they're not innovating as fast as Google can (by forcing innovators to a BuyOut with millon/billion dollor offers).)
I wonder if there's something in this that could be used to provide extra income to open source contributors.
I'd be interested to see GitHub experiment with providing their own service like this for the open source projects it hosts.
A project could designate certain contributors as experts and say you're having a problem with that project, you could talk with an expert via GitHub, for a per-minute fee, with an optional minimum of 15 minutes (for example).
I'd guess it'd be more likely to succeed by being right there integrated in GitHub's UI, rather than shoehorning just a link to Google Helpouts or another service into a project's README.
At this point I don't even know what will convince me that stuff like this that Google releases isn't yet another dead-in-a-year product. We've seen a number of great service being killed just in the past few months alone. What makes this any different?
My only advice to kids is: don't make this something you depend on. Remember if you aren't paying for it, you're the product, and Google could care less about you and your silly needs when it comes time for some Spring Cleaning™.
You may think that you're blowing peoples' minds with that "you're the product" line - but if you're literally selling your skills then that is the whole point - it's a positive!
Oh please drop this "Oh Google killed Reader" drama already.
If you are interested in this use it. Engage as a user first if you do not trust. This is not a life and death application anyway (Reader or many of the dead services were not either). Products may or may not live they need to see if this will float or sink.
The comments here show an interesting legacy that Google is developing. The lack of durability in its products.
I think the helpout concept is great, although only a small step up from the fact that for many things there is a youtube video it seems explaining how to do something. But it could be killer in education, specifically is MOOCs are the new college, what is the new TA? This could work there.
I signed up in the beta, mainly to learn how Google is approaching this. Observations:
+ High degree of curation and investment in quality
+ High investment of people to achieve the above
For example, I did a live video interview with a knowledgeable Google rep and she had several recommendations. About a week later, my submission was reviewed again, with even more (good) recommendations.
[+] [-] cromwellian|12 years ago|reply
Google is a company that is constantly experimenting with new products and services. Yes, some of them will fail. That's the cost of innovation. It's really sad we've forgotten that. Failure is an acceptable risk to move forward. If you're risk averse, leave the opportunity to others to jump in and place their bets if Helpouts is a winning platform for them.
[+] [-] swombat|12 years ago|reply
As a couple of good examples: Google Wave was created to give the Rasmussen brothers (creators of Google Maps) something high-profile to do. Then it was launched in a disastrously bad way (closed beta? for a new communication tool meant to replace email?). Then as adoption started to build (but not quick enough to satisfy the political needs of the project), Wave was yanked after just a year.
Google Reader became a cornerstone of the web's infrastructure, a public utility service that cost comparatively little, returned perhaps little other than good will, but ultimately served a purpose for millions of users. But that wasn't enough for Google, so they yanked it.
In both cases, there was no real alternative path offered. Google just made an internal political decision to yank a project, and that's that. The public never even got the option to try and support the project.
Based on the above and other less high-profile examples, I'm not willing to invest my time as an early adopter in a company that has the deep pockets to fund long-shot projects, but doesn't have the balls to follow them through to their exciting conclusions.
Google Wave was a very exciting development with a lot of promise. Google Reader could have been evolved further and become an even more important piece of infrastructure, with all the good will associated with that. Instead, both are now black splotches on Google's reputation, in my view at least.
[+] [-] grey-area|12 years ago|reply
It's certainly an acceptable risk for Google and other companies like FB - the short-term cost of innovation for Google is pretty close to zero. The long-term cost of reputation is perhaps something they're only now starting to realise.
Whether it's an acceptable risk for the users of these services is up to them, and many of them are deciding it is not, because these services can be so easily closed. Sounds fair to me.
I don't think anyone's forgotten the cost of innovation, they're simply aware that the costs of it are borne by users, not by Google.
[+] [-] derefr|12 years ago|reply
I don't think anyone's forgotten; we forgive small companies for trying-and-failing to do something cool all the time. For some reason, though, we (as an angry mob) seem to be incapable of allowing big companies to try-and-fail at exactly the same sorts of things.
(Personally, I think it might have something to do with how ancestral-environment humans saw leaders making promises as mostly a chance to tear them down from their dominant positions.)
[+] [-] unclebucknasty|12 years ago|reply
Another example is their Google Affiliate Network, a product they acquired as part of their ValueClick acquisition. There were tons of businesses using it on both the advertiser and affiliate sides. This usage included heavy integrations, reporting, API access, product catalogs, etc. They suddenly announced that they were killing it within a couple of months.
There was no attempt to sell it, assist customers with migration, or otherwise provide some continuity for customers. Google seems to have no sense of responsibility that people and businesses are depending on their services. Their M.O. is to just get people to "invest" in Google products/services and entrust their own businesses to Google, then pull the rug from under them when it no longer suits Google.
It's a problem, and the reputation they are receiving is well-earned.
[+] [-] qq66|12 years ago|reply
This seems fairly transactional and thus fairly low-risk, although on the help provider side there's probably a reputation system which will become meaningless when the product is shut down.
[+] [-] xb95|12 years ago|reply
All joking aside, this could be interesting. It makes me think of that service that existed for a while where you could ask a question of a topic area, and it would send an IM to people and ask them to answer it. I forget what it was called, but I used it for a little while.
The payment/HIPAA compliance aspect are pretty interesting, too. I would easily throw $50 at a 10 minute consult with a doctor instead of having to make an appointment and haul myself in to the local clinic. Particularly if said doctor could then fax a prescription for something completely boring but still not OTC to my local pharmacy.
[+] [-] BrandonY|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] car|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] commandar|12 years ago|reply
I remember hearing an NPR report recently about some doctors running their private practice similar to that. They were basically operating on a subscription model - they would come see you if needed, but for quick consults and the like, they'd do things like Skype calls to talk with their patients. Struck me as a very interesting idea.
EDIT:
This isn't the report I'm thinking of, but it's very similar:
http://www.opb.org/news/article/npr-virtual-urgent-care-the-...
This is for urgent care, but as I said above, I've heard similar reports about private practices working this way.
[+] [-] brokenmusic|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ilaksh|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dingaling|12 years ago|reply
With search results or Gmail they can hand-wave away dis-satisfaction my saying the 99th percentile are happy, but this is one-on-one. I can see the Money Back Guarantee being quite a support burden.
But why are Google doing this? It's not really "organizing the World's information" because it keeps knowledge compartmentalised in the 'experts'.
[+] [-] bambax|12 years ago|reply
Maybe the strategy is to eventually make sessions public? which would actually add value for the community.
Or it's a cheap ploy to get people to use Google+ (and if so, good luck with that).
[+] [-] panabee|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anon1385|12 years ago|reply
I'm confused, hasn't this existed for months? Here is an earlier HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6248771
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] abrahamsen|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saiko-chriskun|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rurounijones|12 years ago|reply
Youtube channel with tutorials, how-to's etc. to build up your credibility.
Google Helpouts to help people directly when they want to go beyond the tutorials or get that little extra.
[+] [-] sachitgupta|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adamzerner|12 years ago|reply
I could see some situations where it'd be useful though.
- If you have a quick question and are really frustrated and are willing to pay.
- Sometimes you care a lot or have a lot of money, and are willing to get a tutor.
- Some things (like doctor appointments) might be better served online than in person.
[+] [-] robinwarren|12 years ago|reply
I believe this model for connecting people for very brief engagements over the internet is an interesting one. With the educational model being pushed by companies like Coursera I could see something like this becoming popular for access to tutors or even peers studying the same subject. For quick help solving a problem there is obviously a problem of getting to sufficient scale in a 2-sided market place. Perhaps google will achieve that. I suppose the risk is becoming the yahoo answers or the expersexchange of the space.
[+] [-] ancarda|12 years ago|reply
A bit of a vicious cycle.
[+] [-] k-mcgrady|12 years ago|reply
Why? It's not like you have to invest anything into the service (building a network, creating a profile etc.etc.) and it doesn't seem like a tool that is meant to become part of your workflow (e.g. reader). Also, if Helpouts goes away these 'experts' will still be available somewhere - you could schedule appointments directly.
[+] [-] detst|12 years ago|reply
I doubt it. That attitude is mostly a HN/geek thing. I like that they're willing to try things and test for viability in the real world. I'd rather have something and for it go away than to never have it at all. (And yes, I do understand the frustrations with Reader but I wouldn't go back in time and never use it from the start)
[+] [-] middus|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jroseattle|12 years ago|reply
- Google is presently curating this list, approving everyone who would be a provider. This is fine for launch, but this obviously needs to scale.
- From a functional standpoint, this is the Human App Store. How do I, the provider, promote myself among thousands of search results for underwater-basket-weaving experts?
- Race to the bottom: I don't associate Google with any sort of premium pricing model. If I think my services are worth more than the low-cost providers, but I'm one of a thousand providers, am I going to have to go the only other route Google tends to provide -- paid advertising placement?
The idea is interesting, but I don't think Google will ever position it to be helpful to anyone but users and themselves.
[+] [-] nodata|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yanivs|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] icebraining|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] risratorn|12 years ago|reply
I guess it's all about making money now for google. If something is profitable it has to go :(
[+] [-] jsonne|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] X4|12 years ago|reply
I think BuyOuts should be regulated, this could help the whole industry and econmy. Google should probably be fined with multi billion penalties for using their monopoly power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google_products-- IMHO: (Services stealing the market of businesses, who lost their job or company should be paid their loss. Services not focusing on their main product should be forced to get closed, or get opened up to the public. I know this is very harsh and I don't think that all of this is necessary or should really be done, but someone has to stop Google from acting so dominantly and strategically. They're aiming for world leadership, nothing less and are killing every enemy sector, one by one. This is not a paranoid act of me to boycott Google. I use their services every day. But I don't want them to kill every other sector, just because they're not innovating as fast as Google can (by forcing innovators to a BuyOut with millon/billion dollor offers).)
[+] [-] mikeevans|12 years ago|reply
https://helpouts.google.com/114052868601022948953/ls/a65184a...
[+] [-] eliot_sykes|12 years ago|reply
I'd be interested to see GitHub experiment with providing their own service like this for the open source projects it hosts.
A project could designate certain contributors as experts and say you're having a problem with that project, you could talk with an expert via GitHub, for a per-minute fee, with an optional minimum of 15 minutes (for example).
I'd guess it'd be more likely to succeed by being right there integrated in GitHub's UI, rather than shoehorning just a link to Google Helpouts or another service into a project's README.
[+] [-] swansw|12 years ago|reply
My only advice to kids is: don't make this something you depend on. Remember if you aren't paying for it, you're the product, and Google could care less about you and your silly needs when it comes time for some Spring Cleaning™.
[+] [-] oliciv|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] afsina|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|12 years ago|reply
I think the helpout concept is great, although only a small step up from the fact that for many things there is a youtube video it seems explaining how to do something. But it could be killer in education, specifically is MOOCs are the new college, what is the new TA? This could work there.
[+] [-] gz5|12 years ago|reply
+ High degree of curation and investment in quality + High investment of people to achieve the above
For example, I did a live video interview with a knowledgeable Google rep and she had several recommendations. About a week later, my submission was reviewed again, with even more (good) recommendations.