Google Inconsistencies Drive me Nuts

Google has always shown great potential, but they get a pass from the public far too easily.  They aren’t as cohesive and efficient as a lot of people would have us believe.  I’m a software developer by nature, even though I’ve worked in many other capacities within the IT world.  So I take software application quality seriously and feel everyone else should also.  But I guess I’m alone.  It really bothers me how companies the size of Google get away with quirky, inconsistent crap and the public gobbles it up as lobster and prime rib.

For example:

1. Features are not consistently implemented across their supposed “suite” of services.  Themes are only available in some services like Gmail and Blogger, but not with Picasa or Calendar.
2. Google Analytics is not pervasive.  You can’t insert GA code into Picasa web albums for example.
3. The breadcrumb menu links are not consistent.  Sometimes you get links for Notes and Sites and sometimes you don’t.
4. Googe Docs doesn’t allow many common file types to be uploaded because it wants to parse them into a database schema for storing and parsing.  It’s also very inconsistent with respect to file size limitations.  Just click the “Upload” link and read the “Types of files that you can upload” information.
5. Compare what “settings” are available with YouTube, Docs, Calendar, Gmail, Sites, Picasa, and Notes.  Only about 25 percent of them are even consistently available across those services, but even then, they’re not consistently implemented.

Some glaring omissions, “holes” in my opinion, in their offerings include the following services:

1. No group-oriented features for things like shared calendars, documents, and so on. You either have to share a single user account, or constantly “invite” others to view content.  A group calendar would be nice.
2. Nothing to compete with SkyDrive?  Really?!
3. Nothing to compete with Twitter? Really?!
4. Nothing to compete with Craig’s List?  Really?!

They compete with PayPal and Facebook, technically.  But those offerings (Google Checkout, and Orkut, respectively) suck shit.  They are horrible.  They are Apple’s Lisa and Newton, and Microsoft’s Bob and Vista.  Again, they seem to get a pass, as if they have the Midas touch.

I’m just amazed at what gets the stamp of approval from the public as being “quality”.  It’s 2009 folks - wake the fuck up.  Why are we settling for shoddy crap and calling it “innovative”?  This sort of ad hoc assemblage is something we expected back in the 1980’s and early 1990’s.  I can’t believe it’s 2009 and we’re still ok with that sort of output from a company of that size.  I suppose we really haven’t progressed very far after all.  Oh well.