Google is a company that is constantly experimenting with new products and services. Yes, some of them will fail. That's the cost of innovation. It's really sad we've forgotten that. Failure is an acceptable risk to move forward. If you're risk averse, leave the opportunity to others to jump in and place their bets if Helpouts is a winning platform for them.
As a couple of good examples: Google Wave was created to give the Rasmussen brothers (creators of Google Maps) something high-profile to do. Then it was launched in a disastrously bad way (closed beta? for a new communication tool meant to replace email?). Then as adoption started to build (but not quick enough to satisfy the political needs of the project), Wave was yanked after just a year.
Google Reader became a cornerstone of the web's infrastructure, a public utility service that cost comparatively little, returned perhaps little other than good will, but ultimately served a purpose for millions of users. But that wasn't enough for Google, so they yanked it.
In both cases, there was no real alternative path offered. Google just made an internal political decision to yank a project, and that's that. The public never even got the option to try and support the project.
Based on the above and other less high-profile examples, I'm not willing to invest my time as an early adopter in a company that has the deep pockets to fund long-shot projects, but doesn't have the balls to follow them through to their exciting conclusions.
Google Wave was a very exciting development with a lot of promise. Google Reader could have been evolved further and become an even more important piece of infrastructure, with all the good will associated with that. Instead, both are now black splotches on Google's reputation, in my view at least.
That's true for amazingly small values of "everyone." It may include you, several people you know, and other people in your line of work, but that's not remotely the same thing.
I was also using the Google Toolbar (do not consume) spelling auto-correct "API". I was doing some really neat stuff with that technology and they shut that down too. Sure, I can't really complain about that one, but the end result is the same...
If you adopt Google technology, prepare for labor intensive migrations, alternative scrambling, and disappointments.
If a feature had been built that only 0.1% of users are using yet is taking up time to run, why keep it?
I get the whole idea behind the current environment to just throw stuff against the wall, see what sticks, then iterate.
That's great for start-ups, but, I would suggest that it is actually a problem when a well-established company does this repeatedly. In addition to Google just appearing flaky (which in itself is not good), customers do lose faith in the company's commitment to its customers/users and to their products in general.
It's certainly an acceptable risk for Google and other companies like FB - the short-term cost of innovation for Google is pretty close to zero. The long-term cost of reputation is perhaps something they're only now starting to realise.
Whether it's an acceptable risk for the users of these services is up to them, and many of them are deciding it is not, because these services can be so easily closed. Sounds fair to me.
I don't think anyone's forgotten the cost of innovation, they're simply aware that the costs of it are borne by users, not by Google.
Yeah, Reader was closed just eight years after it launched. I didn't even had time to import all my feeds.
I think an important bottom-line to this is that using an application you do not own, on a system you do not own, is not like running a program, it's like having a service done for you. Despite the web application misnomer, Google Reader was a service more than it was an application.
So all the other rules that apply to services apply here as well. The commercial entity behind it can simply decide to end it -- just like a restaurant can decide to stop doing deliveries for whatever reason, including the manager simply not wanting to do it anymore.
This isn't a disaster to anyone. It can be quickly turned into a disaster if you start basing your whole business model on it. Like when you decide to start a food delivery business that receives orders for restaurants that don't do home deliveries, but you only take orders for one restaurant and as soon as that closes, you're out.
I don't think anyone's forgotten; we forgive small companies for trying-and-failing to do something cool all the time. For some reason, though, we (as an angry mob) seem to be incapable of allowing big companies to try-and-fail at exactly the same sorts of things.
(Personally, I think it might have something to do with how ancestral-environment humans saw leaders making promises as mostly a chance to tear them down from their dominant positions.)
Big companies fail, too, but less often, because they once were part of the few start-ups who didn't fail.
If you want high-end and are happy to live with the risk, you go to a start-up.
If you want safety and are happy to live with a more conservative approach, you go to a big company.
If the big one fails, you feel robbed of your safety.
Another example is their Google Affiliate Network, a product they acquired as part of their ValueClick acquisition. There were tons of businesses using it on both the advertiser and affiliate sides. This usage included heavy integrations, reporting, API access, product catalogs, etc. They suddenly announced that they were killing it within a couple of months.
There was no attempt to sell it, assist customers with migration, or otherwise provide some continuity for customers. Google seems to have no sense of responsibility that people and businesses are depending on their services. Their M.O. is to just get people to "invest" in Google products/services and entrust their own businesses to Google, then pull the rug from under them when it no longer suits Google.
It's a problem, and the reputation they are receiving is well-earned.
This seems fairly transactional and thus fairly low-risk, although on the help provider side there's probably a reputation system which will become meaningless when the product is shut down.
All joking aside, this could be interesting. It makes me think of that service that existed for a while where you could ask a question of a topic area, and it would send an IM to people and ask them to answer it. I forget what it was called, but I used it for a little while.
The payment/HIPAA compliance aspect are pretty interesting, too. I would easily throw $50 at a 10 minute consult with a doctor instead of having to make an appointment and haul myself in to the local clinic. Particularly if said doctor could then fax a prescription for something completely boring but still not OTC to my local pharmacy.
Perhaps videoconferencing could be a good option for simple cases (viagra, sleeping pills) while a medical pick-up system could be instituted for patients requiring in-person consultations, but lacking mobility or the urgency required for an ambulance.
I remember hearing an NPR report recently about some doctors running their private practice similar to that. They were basically operating on a subscription model - they would come see you if needed, but for quick consults and the like, they'd do things like Skype calls to talk with their patients. Struck me as a very interesting idea.
EDIT:
This isn't the report I'm thinking of, but it's very similar:
http://www.opb.org/news/article/npr-virtual-urgent-care-the-...
This is for urgent care, but as I said above, I've heard similar reports about private practices working this way.
With search results or Gmail they can hand-wave away dis-satisfaction my saying the 99th percentile are happy, but this is one-on-one. I can see the Money Back Guarantee being quite a support burden.
But why are Google doing this? It's not really "organizing the World's information" because it keeps knowledge compartmentalised in the 'experts'.
Maybe the strategy is to eventually make sessions public? which would actually add value for the community.
Or it's a cheap ploy to get people to use Google+ (and if so, good luck with that).
Oh I had quite forgotten about that! Good point.
See how things used to look :)
http://answers.google.com/answers/
At least with Google Answers the information was public.
Everything Google's done lately has been about Google+
Closing down services and increasing the ad prominence in search, turning into the big bureaucratic bully rather than the small snappy startup has come as a nasty shock to a number of people and they then feel betrayed and angry at Google. It is precisely those who trusted them most who are most angry.
The irrational love has now flipped (for many not all) into irrational hate (to use your word).
Those on the sidelines who never trusted Google enough to look after their mail might find both the love and the hatred overblown but many people feel heavily dependent on Google with Android phones, Gmail accounts and using Google Docs heavily. They worry not just about the current situation but what might come next.
[1] "don't be evil"
[2] I seem to recall the IPO prospectus didn't make shareholder returns seem a very high priority.
A bit of a vicious cycle.
Why? It's not like you have to invest anything into the service (building a network, creating a profile etc.etc.) and it doesn't seem like a tool that is meant to become part of your workflow (e.g. reader). Also, if Helpouts goes away these 'experts' will still be available somewhere - you could schedule appointments directly.
I doubt it. That attitude is mostly a HN/geek thing. I like that they're willing to try things and test for viability in the real world. I'd rather have something and for it go away than to never have it at all. (And yes, I do understand the frustrations with Reader but I wouldn't go back in time and never use it from the start)
Mine was, "Cool; how long's this one gonna last?" It seems like a neat idea, but I bet the novelty is going to wear off pretty quickly.
I'm confused, hasn't this existed for months? Here is an earlier HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6248771
The DYI video success will be better the shorter and better the video is, and I'd rather pay-per-video. If I wanted to talk to a human, there are millions nearby in the city. A DYI video can explain in 2-3 minutes what will take a human 60 minutes in a meeting including greetings and other social fluff.
Most of the listings are listed with either the form "$X per Helpout" or "$X per Helpout or $Y per minute". So, it doesn't look like paid by the minute is either the only supported or even the dominant model. So this objection seems misplaced.
> The DYI video success will be better the shorter and better the video is, and I'd rather pay-per-video.
Canned DIY videos are widely available, and serve a different need that person-to-person consultation.
> If I wanted to talk to a human, there are millions nearby in the city.
Not everyone lives in or near a city with millions of people. And not all those millions in the city are experts in the field that you are concerned about.
> A DYI video can explain in 2-3 minutes what will take a human 60 minutes in a meeting including greetings and other social fluff.
Sure, if there is a specific enough DIY video, that may be the case. OTOH, finding a specific-enough DIY video for a particular need can be a hassle, and in many cases of not particularly common specific needs may not be practical.
(Plus, its quite possible for the experts that do Helpouts to do DIY videos, and to identify good opportunities for DIY videos from what questions they get through Helpouts. Its not a one-way communication.)
My only advice to kids is: don't make this something you depend on. Remember if you aren't paying for it, you're the product, and Google could care less about you and your silly needs when it comes time for some Spring Cleaning™.
I could see some situations where it'd be useful though.
- If you have a quick question and are really frustrated and are willing to pay.
- Sometimes you care a lot or have a lot of money, and are willing to get a tutor.
- Some things (like doctor appointments) might be better served online than in person.
How is that different than a skype/FaceTime session? The video interaction part is likely similar. But a mere video chat session is a much more general idea than this specific use of video chat.
Youtube channel with tutorials, how-to's etc. to build up your credibility.
Google Helpouts to help people directly when they want to go beyond the tutorials or get that little extra.
I believe this model for connecting people for very brief engagements over the internet is an interesting one. With the educational model being pushed by companies like Coursera I could see something like this becoming popular for access to tutors or even peers studying the same subject. For quick help solving a problem there is obviously a problem of getting to sufficient scale in a 2-sided market place. Perhaps google will achieve that. I suppose the risk is becoming the yahoo answers or the expersexchange of the space.
- Google is presently curating this list, approving everyone who would be a provider. This is fine for launch, but this obviously needs to scale.
- From a functional standpoint, this is the Human App Store. How do I, the provider, promote myself among thousands of search results for underwater-basket-weaving experts?
- Race to the bottom: I don't associate Google with any sort of premium pricing model. If I think my services are worth more than the low-cost providers, but I'm one of a thousand providers, am I going to have to go the only other route Google tends to provide -- paid advertising placement?
The idea is interesting, but I don't think Google will ever position it to be helpful to anyone but users and themselves.
I think BuyOuts should be regulated, this could help the whole industry and econmy. Google should probably be fined with multi billion penalties for using their monopoly power.
• ISP's with Google Fiber
• PayPal and Banking Industry → Google Wallet + Google Checkout
• Automobile Industry → Google Car
• TelCo's → Android+Nexus (a google plan soon?)
• Small Businesses in "successfull niche sectors" → BuyOuts
• RIAA, Music and Video Industry → Google Play
• Energy Industry → "Energy startup" BuyOuts
• Spy Agencies → =sumOf(Google Products)
• …And even more that I've not listed, or that is to come…
-- IMHO: (Services stealing the market of businesses, who lost their job or company should be paid their loss. Services not focusing on their main product should be forced to get closed, or get opened up to the public. I know this is very harsh and I don't think that all of this is necessary or should really be done, but someone has to stop Google from acting so dominantly and strategically. They're aiming for world leadership, nothing less and are killing every enemy sector, one by one. This is not a paranoid act of me to boycott Google. I use their services every day. But I don't want them to kill every other sector, just because they're not innovating as fast as Google can (by forcing innovators to a BuyOut with millon/billion dollor offers).)
https://helpouts.google.com/114052868601022948953/ls/a65184a...
I'd be interested to see GitHub experiment with providing their own service like this for the open source projects it hosts.
A project could designate certain contributors as experts and say you're having a problem with that project, you could talk with an expert via GitHub, for a per-minute fee, with an optional minimum of 15 minutes (for example).
I'd guess it'd be more likely to succeed by being right there integrated in GitHub's UI, rather than shoehorning just a link to Google Helpouts or another service into a project's README.
I think the helpout concept is great, although only a small step up from the fact that for many things there is a youtube video it seems explaining how to do something. But it could be killer in education, specifically is MOOCs are the new college, what is the new TA? This could work there.
+ High degree of curation and investment in quality + High investment of people to achieve the above
For example, I did a live video interview with a knowledgeable Google rep and she had several recommendations. About a week later, my submission was reviewed again, with even more (good) recommendations.
help with your printer - $45 per help - $2 per minute (guess that will always be more than the printer was actually retailing for)
General computer help $10 (per incident) $2 per minute
maybe contact your printer / computer support team first - many today have online / real-time chat features now for free.
Google says it's starting small, but Helpouts is already quite broad. Covering lots of subjects won't be such a problem if Google leverages search and YouTube to promote relevant providers, but I'm not sure it will.
Clearly Google should try this out either way.
Sidenote: 71 indexed pages site:helpouts.google.com thusfar.