[anonny]

> The bottom line is, people have fallen out of love with Google because Google is no longer different.

By "people" do you mean the absolute height of the technological elite? The startup-founding, meetup-attending, venture capital funding-acquiring geniuses that apparently make the tech world go round? In that case, yes, Google is no longer the darling of the tech world, but rather just another large, profitable business with a solid bottom line and a horde of (presumably gullible) employees. To them, my working there is a sign that I'm too risk-averse and boring to ever be successful in their little patch of the knowledge economy.

But to the people who matter most, i.e. the people who interact with the mass of products Google puts out, the company is still quite positive. I find it difficult to believe that such intelligent people as the technorati are willing to lose faith in any company that does meaningful work that positively impacts massive amounts of people.

I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm genuinely trying to understand this. Is it the search for novelty? Is it the loss of connection to some ideal? Is it just part of a company growing up?

[Terretta]

You're starting to sound a little astroturfy here. But taking you at face value:

In the context of this site, commenters tend to use the word "people" when referencing a relatively narrow swath of early adopters and influencers. It doesn't usually mean "normals" who really don't know the difference between a browser, a search engine, and "the Internet". The problem is, normals look to influencers to help them decipher the Interweb, and meanwhile Google's been ramming itself down both groups' throats. Consider the Google+ (tech influencers) and YouTube (millennial influencers) real names policies. Neither group is a fan, and sees it as pandering to marketing interests.

And there's your answer. You joined up in the old Doubleclick building, so you know ad revenue powers the ship. When Google seemed to use that revenue to not be evil, to support 20% time and innovate recklessly, spawning tools that subsets of influencers could love and rave about -- even with the beta label and no support, it worked. When it started to come across more cynically, killing "Labs", killing people's pet Google products, taking away "free" and dumping the beta labels without adding a human face of support, it's bound to cause some eye opening to what Google's real business is: not a toy factory, but an ad revenue engine.

It's part of the company growing up, but doesn't have to be. I would argue the company could still easily tweak its image back towards altruism even at the expense of some revenue. Pursue a little more karma than klout to avoid embarrassments like the Google Glass selection.

Sustain information organizing products genuinely, not cynically. Have a soul.

[27182818284]

>By "people" do you mean the absolute height of the technological elite?

No not at all! Actually, I'd say those that I respect for their technical ability still respect Google the most, but even their attitudes are less positive than they were.

I'm not saying anyone is burning-down-buildings mad, but that they are keeping their eyes open for other things. That's all. Even the non-technical. Especially the non-technical.

> Is it the search for novelty?

I'm not sure. My gut is to say "No." to that because it doesn't seem like people are currently craving novelty, but rather bored with Google for doing the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yet_another way of doing something they already have installed. Be it Google Keep in the Play store or Google Offers copying Groupon years ago.

[wutbrodo]

I hear a lot of this too, but anything more than anecdotal evidence (i.e. outside of our filter bubble) suggests that the bulk of people and Google customers are not subject to the kind of irrational hatred in your parent post.

ABC News/Wash Post poll on most favorable tech brands: http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1127a22FavorabilityNo2...