crazychrome

I have zero problem with the fail-fast, fail-earlier strategy and attitude. ultimately it's business. there is no point to continue if it's obviously not going to work. there is a catch though: do fail because of innovation (crazy, big ideas). I'd argue all these experiments, except gmail/map/wave, have 0 substance. most of them are crappy implemented, poor planed cat projects.

Unlike Microsoft, who had the will and executive ability to expand to new territories and destroy competitors, Google has a remarkable record of half-baked works and giving up. it's a joke.

I don't think the fruit company will approve apps programmed other than objc or swift.

I totally agree with the article except one thing: it's much much more a pleasant experience to code iOS app than Android, even without considering the fragmentation problem.

Luckily Peter Bright does not quit covering MS/web/programming yet.

looks good, only 7 years late to the game.

it's a dumb only because it failed. will you do it again if the conversion/reply rate was good?

If I were you, i'll probably setup a competition project repo, invite folks to contribute, only do the sales pitch after they are hooked.

who was the last business leader in tech sector close to politics? john scully?

Well done! I hope Google would do the same when related to NSA and other 3 letters agencies.

when was the last time Google made headline of hn for its technology?

absolutely! In general I trust pure commercial organisations more than govt. and non-profit orgs.

according to my understanding, there is no "fact" in science. there are observations, hypotheses (and null hypotheses if related to stats) and theories. i think "fact" is used in the article as theories or hypotheses that explain corresponding observations well enough, and over and over again.

which comes first, a good consumer product or a healthy ecosystem around it? it's a positive feedback loop thing in later stage but product always comes first. it's not a big secret but only few nailed it occasionally in a decade.

Were Steve Jobs, John Ive, Tim Cook and other Apple guys crystal clear about the theory when they started iPod/iPhone? I don't think so. Apple has a unique weapon called design and is willing to pay whatever it costs to enhance it. Its business is to use the weapon wherever there is a chance: mp3 player, tivo, mobile phone, watch and more to come. The rest is upon professors in business schools to figure out.

the behaviour of an individual does affect his creditability though.