Photos was brand new in 2015. Search is from 1998. I'm not a mathematician but that means that search is about three times older than it...
If the point you're trying to make is that Google needs to bring every service they offer up to a billion users within five years of launching it, I don't know if there's much of a point to me trying to convince you
> If the point you're trying to make is that Google needs to bring every service they offer up to a billion users within five years of launching it
Well I didn’t say anything like this or anything that implied anything close to this so I suppose you’d have to engage with what I actually said.
Photos existed and was available to the public before it was “released” in 2015. Even then, 10 years is certainly not recent for a company of Google’s age. I don’t think even IBM would consider a 10 year old product a recent release.
> Photos existed and was available to the public before it was “released” in 2015.
Google has had several previous photos apps! The actually useful one is the most recent.
> Even then, 10 years is certainly not recent for a company of Google’s age.
So you swear you aren't demanding proof that services released in the past five years are successes, but you're complaining that pretty much anything older is too old.
Dude, I am engaging with what you said. Almost no product is wildly successful in less than 10 years by Google's standards, because Google measures users in billions.
If you still wanna ignore Photos, then talk about Gemini, Cloud, and Waymo. The Pixel phones are also doing pretty well, considering how dominant Apple has been.
My point here is that you're ignoring numbers that would be INSANE for any startup because the product is from Google. It really seems to me like you're looking for reasons to discredit the company instead of the truth, which is that non-ad revenue is 25% of the total and growing.
That's pretty significant and in absolute terms makes Google a giant even without search.
I am SO confused and have no idea what you’re talking about. Do you think you’re talking to someone else?
My post was Thesis: Photos is not new
Supporting evidence: everything else.
I am not OP, I am not saying anything you’re responding to (and when I look at the OP you responded to they didn’t say what you’re responding to either).
I’m not ignoring any numbers they just don’t have anything to do with my post.
Additionally, Photos was a relaunched app that’s why I’m saying the 2015 is a little misleading, I am aware Google had other photo apps before Photos and I’m not talking about that.
I can say “your examples are bad” without espousing “Google doesn’t do anything”
> My post was Thesis: Photos is not new
> Supporting evidence: everything else.
I am getting my number from Wikipedia, because that's when the actual "good" version of Photos launched. I don't know what the status quo was before the relaunch, because the app wasn't useful to me before it got the ML features that caused it to blow up and become a wild success.
The point I am trying to make is that Photos, on its own, would be a multibillion dollar startup. In the context of billion-user apps, even being 10 years old is still pretty recent.
My complaint with your take is that if you exclude anything younger than that, OBVIOUSLY there will not be as many (or any) wild successes. It takes time for a product to become successful.
That's not what they said.
They said, if Photos is currently recent (aka 2025-2015 = 10 years = recent) then Search was recent when Photos came out (aka 2015-1998 = 12 years = recent).
Which given the overall timeframes, I'd say that's close enough to say 10 years ~= 12 years. And they said they'd actually count the non-Photos time of Photos as Photos, so add some to the 10 years.
2015-1998 = 17, not 12.
Yeah this is what drove me a little crazy about his reply. That's almost a factor of 2.
ROFL, HN needs Cap'n Picard face palm. You are of course correct. slowly walks out backwards while trying to turn less than lobster red