Google: Stop Acquiring Companies I Like

Dear Google,

I love you guys, I really do. Your search is top notch, your Gmail/Google Apps is a killer product and even you Google Reader is the best RSS reader I’ve found, online or off. You guys have a knack for producing exciting, reliable products that change the way we use information.

However, I do have one tiny favor to ask you. One small, minuscule request. Can you please stop buying up companies of products that I use? If so, that would be great. Because I’m really getting tired of you screwing up the things that were going along great without you.

If you have any questions about this request, I politely direct you to the article below. It will answer many of your queries and give my reasons for thinking that the Web would be better off if you kept your pocketbook a little closer to your chest.

The Google Problem

Realistically speaking Google has six products that are widely hailed as good and only two where you are dominant. They are.

1. Google Search
2. Google Ads (Adsense/Adwords)
3. Gmail
4. Google Docs
5. Google Reader
6. Google Maps

The problem is that all of these, with the exception of Google Docs, were developed in house for the most part (some did have add ons and extensions that came from other companies). Google made them, tailored them, made sure they were what the people wanted and put them out there. From day one, they were Google’s babies.

Sure, Google has had a few stinkers, Google Answers, Google Notebook, Lively, etc. but they’ve always been able to pull the gems out of their own work.

Unfortunately, when it comes to other people’s products, the ones that they buy, Google seems to do a great job snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Products that were fine and good before they came under the Google banner suddenly start stinking.

Though some products have done fine, YouTube being an example, it is usually because Google keeps them under a separate banner and just runs them as a silent overlord. You get the revenue, they get to keep on as they were before.

Whenever Google tries to “integrate” a product into their fold, it seems that disaster always follows.

A History of Misfires

Before the pod people chase me down and kill me for not joining the Google cult, let’s take a look at a few examples through Google’s history.

1. Dodgeball: Dodgeball was a semi-promising social networking service that used text messaging. Founded in 2000, it was bought by Google in 2005. Two years later, the founders quit in disgust. In a few months, the service will be closed for good.
2. FeedBurner: In 2007, FeedBurner, a very popular feed tracking and serving service, was acquired by Google. Initially the purchase was hailed as Google “liberated” the pro stats program, making it available for free to all. Integration came slow, but when it started within the past few months, almost immediately reliability issues were noticed.
3. Jaiku: Jaiku was a promising microblogging service that was considered a competitor for Twitter. Though it lagged behind Twitter in users, it had an additional features and greater reliability. It seemed poised to make a solid challenge. Google acquired Jaiku in the latter part of 2007 and promptly sat on it, closing it off to sign ups and then eventually deciding to kill it as a public-facing project.

Of course, these are just the obvious flame outs and misfires. This doesn’t even look at Google’s long history of acquiring competitors just to either A) Gain their employees or B) Put down the competition.

Consider this, according to Wikipedia (the source of all truth on the Web), Google has purchased no fewer than four companies that had their products go into Google Docs (or spreadsheets). This includes two different companies that made online presentation software, one word processor and one spreadsheet.

Though Google Docs is a solid product offering, I even listed it as such, did four companies really have to die to make it happen? The problem is that Google recruits talent like a pirate “recruits” treasure. It boards the ship, takes it over, moves the good stuff over to their boat and sinks the old one.

I wouldn’t mind that so much if Google would retain the sense of innovation and creativity that brought these companies to their attention. However, far too often, Google simply buys the companies, hires the people, kills the product or lets it rot in some kind of purgatory.

It isn’t fair to the people that worked to develop the product and it certainly isn’t fair to the people who used and relied on it. Just think of what these four companies could have done if they were still in business and independent today.

Conclusions

In the future, I’m making it my policy to, if I am using a service that Google is acquiring, to get the Hell off of there before it’s too late. If I had left FeedBurner when they first announced the acquisition, I would have had a clear path to leave. Now, it’s not so certain.

I’ll continue to love Google’s native products as well as any acquired ones that remain separate from Google. But for those that Google tries to “integrate” in with its core offerings, I’m likely going to have to say goodbye until the new product proves to be stable and not shut down.

Google has an ugly habit of buying up good Web services and either running them into the ground or integrating them in such a way that the sum of the parts is greater than the new “whole” produced. Fortunately though, it seems Google has slowed down is acquisitions and it might be to the benefit of the Web that Google is feeling the economic pinch. Small, agile companies will be able to grow their ideas without being bought out blindly by the big G.

Though there is certainly nothing wrong with buying up smaller companies and I certainly don’t wish to equate Google with the Microsoft of the 90s, it is clear that not all of Google’s buys have been in the best interest of the Web.

It is most likely time for us to accept that.