Larry Page’s “Beautiful” New Google

Yesterday, we wrote about Larry Page’s Search-Plus-Your-World ultimatum and much of the buzz was around the “or work somewhere else” part. But our source emphasized another word he used. “Beautiful.”

According to sources, that word has been bandied about Google quite a bit lately, and is turning up again and again in the company’s recent public comments too.

Back in December, Page said, “All of us at Google want to create services that people in the world will use twice a day just like a toothbrush. And we strive to make those services beautiful, simple and easy to use. That way we can provide huge benefit to the world.”

Vic Gundotra, Google’s senior vice president of social, tied this explicitly to the social strategy, saying, “Four months ago when, when we opened [Google+] to the public, we were not sure what kind of reception we would receive. Expect us to deliver something truly beautiful. We’ve only just begun to work on that promise.”

I think we’d all consider “simple” and “easy to use” as hallmarks of Google’s product aesthetic, as is “clean,” “spartan,” “stark” and even “geeky,” given the multi-colored logo and large, whimsical sculptures that dot the campus.

But the emphasis on “beautiful” seems a departure. Particularly from Google’s more gritty throw-it-out-in-beta-and-see-what-sticks past.

Is it just me or does it seem like the Google brain trust all got copies of the Steve Jobs biography for Christmas?

If you watch Google’s recent Chrome commercials the link between what Apple has built in your mobile Web-world and where Google wants to take your computer-Web world is even clearer.

From Apple:

From Google:

No doubt, everyone wants to be the next Steve Jobs at this point– particularly after Apple’s insane quarter yesterday. Beauty sells. Beauty is sexy right now. Beauty is the story reporters want to write. Beauty is what investors want to buy. Beauty is poised to be the buzz word that “innovative” was a few years ago in business circles.

But for Apple’s customers, beauty was the trade-off we made. We got beauty, but we gave up control and openness. “There’s an app for that,” means, “You don’t need anything outside the Apple ecosystem.”

Google’s new tagline “The Web Is What you Make of It,” and its commercials showing all the touch points of Google in your day telegraph a similar message. All you need are Google’s “beautiful” integrated products to enjoy the Web.

That’s psychologically very different from the company Page, Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt built. Google disrupted the portal-based search market precisely because the company sent you away from their site– something that was unthinkable as a business strategy at the time. Google brilliantly saw value in being that trusted utility to navigate the Web. It was the router of eyeballs, not the company trying to monopolize them like Yahoo, AOL or MSN.

But the TV ads and recent messaging from Page show Google as something very different. It shows Google as the brand you never leave.

A beautiful walled garden– much like what Apple has built on mobile and what Facebook is increasingly trying to build through Facebook Connect. Given that’s what competitors are doing and that Google needs a new growth area, it’s not a shock. But it’s a clear psychological departure for the company, and it’s being championed by the top down.

Why does this matter? Because Google is the company that most of the world trusts to access the Web, and the Web used to be a static thing. If each of us searched for a term, we’d all get the same result. But social is inherently personalized. Each of us sees a different Facebook homepage and a different Twitter stream. The more the view of the world Google gives us is integrated into social, the less we’re seeing “the” Web and the more the Web is something fungible; it’s what “we’re making of it.”

Put another way, is Google moving from being a company that organizes the world’s information to one that organizes the information of “your” world?

As I said two days ago, either way, Google needs to come clean with users and communicate if the direction of the company has dramatically changed. And I plan on keep bringing it up until they do. Google’s search engine is too important to how we all get news and information to be so coy and quiet in the face of recent evidence that its values are changing.

I’m not the only one worried. Check out this post from this former Googler who wonders whether Google is having its “Microsoft 1995″ moment. From the post:

“In the early 1990s Microsoft didn’t understand the Internet. Windows didn’t even support TCP/IP, you had to download third party drivers like Trumpet Winsock to go online. And there was certainly no web browser, Netscape was going to sell that to users. Then in 1994–1995 Bill Gates executed an admirable turnaround at Microsoft with help from folks like Sinofsky and Allard. They quickly built a TCP/IP stack and a web browser and bundled it with Windows 95 and NT. Gates’ memo The Internet Tidal Wave was the visionary document that explained it all. That rapid embracing of the Internet saved Microsoft as a company; they would have been doomed otherwise.

In the late 2000s Google didn’t understand social media. They had some clumsy efforts like Orkut and Buzz but you had to go to MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, or RenRen to get social. Then in 2011 Larry Page executed an admirable turnaround at Google, with help from folks like Gundotra and Horowitz. They quickly built Google+ and bundled it with the primary search engine. There’s no visionary memo about Google+ in public but you can bet they have a very clear and strong strategy internally. The rapid embracing of social media is unprecedented for Google; it’s commendable.”

I’m not trying to beat up on Google, but you can’t overemphasize how much this shift in strategy would change how users interact with the Web and how Web startups get users. Google is our gateway to the Web, because it’s never tried to control the Web, shape the Web or make it beautiful.

As someone who goes to Google more times a day than any other site, I hope I’m wrong about how deep this change in philosophy is among Google’s leadership. I already have two companies who make sense of my world for me: Twitter and Facebook. I don’t need a third. I need a clean, reliable search engine and email service I can trust.

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest

[...] 佩奇被乔布斯洗脑得也很严重,他喜欢beautiful设备,他面对批评时依然是保持沉默,他也很坦诚的告诉那些不喜欢新政策的员工可以一边玩去。 [...]

[...] continues to scorch everything it once considered sacred in the name of propping up the most successful social media site that no one I know actually uses. [...]

[...] like Jetsetter and Fab are offering something more than price or ease. They are offering the business buzz word of the year: [...]

[...] picture of the move. It was anything but beautiful and simple experience that Google’s been talking about wanting to deliver [...]

[...] очень сильно напоминал Стива Джобса. Он любит “красивые” гаджеты. Он молчит, когда его критикуют. Он открыто [...]

[...] 的 Nexus 就能说明。   佩奇被乔布斯洗脑得也很严重,他喜欢 beautiful [...]

[...]   佩奇被乔布斯洗脑得也很严重,他喜欢beautiful设备,他面对批评时依然是保持沉默,他也很坦诚的告诉那些不喜欢新政策的员工可以一边玩去。 [...]

[...]   佩奇被乔布斯洗脑得也很严重,他喜欢beautiful设备,他面对批评时依然是保持沉默,他也很坦诚的告诉那些不喜欢新政策的员工可以一边玩去。 [...]

[...]   佩奇被乔布斯洗脑得也很严重,他喜欢beautiful设备,他面对批评时依然是保持沉默,他也很坦诚的告诉那些不喜欢新政策的员工可以一边玩去。 [...]

[...] 回顾一下去年愚人节的时候,Fred Wilson称Google的操作系统会让移动开发者获得卓越的市场。Android已经占据了智能手机市场不小的市场份额了,其占有率一路飙升。与此同时苹果的增长有一点放缓,但iPhone仍占据了差不多25%的市场份额。 Android已经有点偏离移动市场,Google像脱缰的野马,收不住了。 想象这些日子发生的事情还是挺有趣的。 各种关于专利的争吵,到Google花费125亿美金收购摩托罗拉移动达到高潮。随后因为iPhone又再次回落。不过comScore的最新数据显示尽管Android的增长依然比其竞争对手要快,但是其增长率从二月份开始因为苹果而放缓了。尼尔森的数据则显示iPhone已经快到和Android平起平坐的地步了。过去三个月买手机的消费者中,44.5%选择了iPhone,46.3%选择了Android。 现在Android最大的问题出现了,苹果的季度收益130.6亿美金,远远超过Google的季度收益,前一个季度,单一个iPhone的收益都有90亿美金,如果你相信斯坦福的那份分析称手机闭目了苹果67%的收益,相比之下,Google才35.1亿美金的营收。一条产品线的收益就超过了Google所有产品的收益。 这个数字应该给Google敲响警钟。他们一直认为Android的商业模式:免费和开放会在某天给他们带来巨大的收益,但是现在看来想做到苹果那样真的太难了。 是时候让Google来尝试一些改变了:别搞开源了,搞授权,你懂得,用这个来换钱!和摩托罗拉的交易完成后让其独立运营,Google应该让手机制造商自己来彻底执行。 你可能认为这个主意太疯狂了,Android整个都是免费的,正因为这个才有如此之多的制造商选择了它,他们也才能如此便宜地卖出手机。   但是免费的Android对Google来说有多大用?Google从每个Android用户那里每年只能赚到6-10美元!这屁都不是;虽说每年有2.55亿Android手机,这才就是25亿美金而已,相比苹果的iPhone,真的是不值一提。 另外在移动广告这块,Google貌似也很怀疑能否带来好运。Google最新的财报显示移动广告相比桌面广告,也完全不可相提并论,尽管有很多桌面用户转移到了手机端。将Android进行授权,Google或许可以重新从智能手机上赚取到更多的收益。 授权会让手机制造商远离Android?在几年前可能要担心,但是现在Google和主要的手持设备制造商都已经上了Android的贼船,他们已经围绕这个系统建立起一个生态链,有许多用户很喜欢Android,手机制造商其实都很清楚Android不可能是真的免费的。相比开发这款系统的成本,Google在各种专利保护上花的钱更多,而且每部Android手机还要给微软10-15美金的授权费! 因此Google的机会就在:每个Android的license向制造商收10美元,将每Copy的成本提高至20-25美金。三星和HTC等可能会有障碍,但是他们是不是也会做点什么来增加成本?Google收的这笔钱会拿去和微软就各种专利打官司,各家制造商也就会继续选择站在Android这边。 Google最大的机会就在于有摩托罗拉,可以打造属于自己的“iPhone”——每个人都想要的一部手机,以一个合理的价格提供各种功能,也能卖得不错。这没啥不可能的,Google的Nexus就能说明。 佩奇被乔布斯洗脑得也很严重,他喜欢beautiful设备,他面对批评时依然是保持沉默,他也很坦诚的告诉那些不喜欢新政策的员工可以一边玩去。 为啥走这条路?在手机业务上面,苹果的模式就是做手机,买手机,赚钱!这才是正道! 更多 “ IT数码 ” 的文章 [...]

[...] 佩奇被乔布斯洗脑得也很严重,他喜欢beautiful设备,他面对批评时依然是保持沉默,他也很坦诚的告诉那些不喜欢新政策的员工可以一边玩去。 [...]

[...] Larry Page has been doing his best impression of Steve Jobs. He loves gadgets that are “beautiful.” He remains silent in the face of criticism. He bluntly tells employees who don’t like his new [...]

[...] Larry Page’s “Beautiful” New Google | PandoDaily [...]

Agreed. Google needs to get back to it's core product -- SEARCH. Or like I said recently, I remember a time when Google went to great lengths to respect our privacy and make search results fair and impartial. With their new motto ‘Search Plus Your World’, the era of “privacy“, “fair” and “impartial” has now come to an end. I want my information totally unvarnished and without bias. Experience has shown that when a company loses focus of it’s core product, it will founder. It would be a serious mistake for Google to think that it's too big to fail. Bigger giants have fallen.

Reblogged this on Roadrunners vs. Penguins and commented: Sarah Lacy absolutely nails the source of that unsettled feeling I (and many people) had at the news that Google+ would be integrated into Google search results. Arguably the greatest value of Google's simplistic, purest search engine was that it showed you the web as it is, the same way for everyone. Of course, Google wouldn't be making the change unless they sensed that the world is asking for hyper-personalization of their internet experience. Do we really want this or should Google submit itself as the Untouched Virgin of Online Search?

[...] Larry Page’s “Beautiful” New Google, PandoDaily [...]

[...] of search impartiality to users made you billions of dollars. You owe them an answer. You are too important to the Web to sweep this under the [...]

[...] users do on its various products, and making sure that users have a “beautiful” experience, as Larry Page put it. This is quite interesting, considering the way Google has portrayed itself as almost the [...]

[...] from Facebook and decides that it knows what is best for us. I liked how Sarah Lacy talked about it here. So Google is now emulating Facebook [...]

I have adopted a separate browser to keep google and facebook login cookies completely separate from all other activity. I was worried it be a pain. Turns out it's just the window I click to access these things. I google normally in my main browser without logging in - ever. Consequently, it has no idea who my friends are. When I notice patterns in my browsing, I kill my cookies. Fresh, unpersonalized search results. It's annoying but I *hate* the feeling that I'm only allowed to see what google thinks is best for me. As for facebook, I hate that the 'like' button code knows that I have my whatever functions turned off. I want it to think of me as a stranger unless I am on their site. With a special, separate browser, it does.

[...] advert miss. It’s a classic business maneuver, and it aligns with CEO Larry Page’s recent use of the world “beautiful” to describe what Google does. That’s an epithet that [...]

Loved the commercial ... tried to do what it suggested .. OOPS, Google won't let me set up an email account for my child, apparently there are age limits. Seriously, I saw this ad on TV ... running it on TV can't be cheap, you think at least one of their 32,000 employees would have checked this out beforehand.

Google's been doing these sort of commercials for a while now - nothing new with the example you provided (older example from 2009 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnsSUqgkDwU)

The web, brought to you by Google.

I think Sarah points to a bigger issue -what happens when a company loses it's vision or (perhaps worse) it's brand. The beauty of Google was the minimalism and the perception that very smart people were helping you find what you need; the ranking providing relevancy from people interested in the content. I'm a scientist but most of my friends are not; how is that going to affect my search. Given most of "real" searches are on Google Scholar, the point is likely moot. As Stencil mentioned in the previous comment, there's a trivial solution - don't log in. However, will that always be an option? This is exactly why corporations need to avoid pithy slogans like, "don't be evil." Are you an organization that wants to transform information sharing or are you a corporation focused on increasing revenue? I'm certain the shareholders have an opinion.

I agree, and cool glasses 8D

double this ^

I think it is actually one of the places where capitalism itself fails us. It somehow insists that all companies must grow endlessly. I dream of a world where google can occupy the search and ad world, make profits of billions, and be happy with that. And without having to do a million things that cause them to lose sight of their prime mission and make us all crazy with privacy intrusions.

[...] do on its various products, and making sure that users have a “beautiful” experience, as Larry Page put it. This is quite interesting, considering the way Google has portrayed itself as almost the [...]

Geesh, I thought smart people read these blogs. If you don't want personalized search, or SPYW, or whatever it is they call it, just don't log in! Done. I have a google account, but I log in only if I need to. There, world back in order. Move along.

Bye bye Google, its been nice.

Google was forced to move this direction because the web changed. Google could no longer maintain its mission to organize the world's information when so much of it was being created and held captive behind walled gardens (Facebook, LinkedIn). G+ and SPYW are a gambit to draw them out and offer up searchable content. If the success of Words with Friends is any indication, the majority of Apple iOS Apps (popular, not longtail ones) may escape the wall-garden and interact with Android apps. Beauty is just table stakes.

Very well done, Sarah! I enjoyed this piece a ton. And love the use of Ingrid michaelson's song in the Google video.

Cool article! Just like in all others subjects man always need balance in a company. so if they build programms for the rich it should also build something for the poor. If it creates programs for advertisement they need the buyers to check it. plus / minus ying/yang. Perhaps Google can do something, like Microsoft is doing for the poverty, with the below concept: www.followfellow.com ?

[...] Larry Page’s “Beautiful” New Google [...]

[...] “Schönheit” als neues Firmencredo ausgemacht.Ex-TechCrunch-Autorin Sarah Lacy beschreibt in ihrem neuen Blog PandoDaily, wie Google-intern in letzter Zeit ungewöhnlich häufig über [...]

Why does it seem like no one can remember just a few years ago? Larry became CEO in 2011 and his meeting with Jobs in which Jobs told him to "focus" happened in 2011. The "Web is what you make of it campaign" for Chrome is over a year old and is an out-growth of Search Stories success. Google' Search Stories started in 2009 (remember the Parisian Love Superbowl commercial?) Can we please stop with the idea that anyone trying to improve the user experience of anything or emotionally connect with people is just copying Steve Jobs!? Brand advertising is as old as media itself. For Christ Sakes, MG Sielger, Sarah, and others act like they were born yesterday and have no sense of history. Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful. It is not limited to 10 blue web links. It is organizing information, all information. Google has been talking about the future of search for *years* in the public, well before the iPhone was a success and well before Siri. It included ideas that Search would eventually become like you see in Star Trek's Enterprise computer system. Anyone building a universal search engine will have to have multiple databases. Web, Financial, Government, Scientific, Historical, and yes, Personal. I mean, Google even blogged about this in 2008: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/future-of-search.html Why are you all of a sudden so shocked? The only thing shocking is that they waited to long to prioritize it.

Thanks for a thoughtful, well-reasoned post-- I thought it was a measured take on a hot-button topic. PD is officially on my must-read list.

What does the Chrome product do? that Enhanced my life? Why is that related to a Dad writing emails to his daughter? Jesus.

Considering that I spend close to 10 hours a day in Google Chrome, Yes.

Google + is basically shit. And we all know it.

whose "we", fb employees? opt me out of this bs

wtf is a circle? These nerds can't launch a fucking product to save their lives, Googall is an engineering company not a marketing company and it shows lol

"Put another way, is Google moving from being a company that organizes the world’s information to one that organizes the information of “your” world?" I think Google is trying to provide you with what's relevant in "your" world out of all the information available in the world. It's a tricky thing to figure out considering how much data is out there.

This is my new source of minimalist beauty - the aesthetic that Google has left behind :) http://duckduckgo.com/

Thats nice,...There is also http://www.kleemi.com "Community First"

results are good

Thanks for checking kleemi out :)

@bruce I failed to notice your other 4 spam posts. Think you could post it again?