Shared publicly  - 
Vivek Iyer's profile photoEdmond Hirota's profile photoSelena Shen's profile photoJL Juarez's profile photo
Maybe, becoming less open?
That means existing gmail labs feature will be gone? Hope not. 
in retrospect, surprised it took Page this long
perhaps they'll focus on building less great things instead of a bunch of shitty stuff
seems very un-Google-like. I thought they allowed employees to use up to 20% of their time working on developing new stuff....always figured successful ones ended up in Labs.
Sucks! But I think it's a smart move, prepping product better before launch will mean better products, and less products just being left on the shelf waiting for users to find them and play with them. I think Google has been moving to a place where everything is a lab, which s IMO more like the way Google was pre-Schmidt.
+Alexia Tsotsis I've always thought of Google as this adventurous company leading the way in innovations, not afraid to put some chips into a risky project. Killing off Labs makes me feel like a little piece of that died with it.
I've seen and heard this tone before at different companies, unfortunately things only moved downwards after that.
What it translates into is products taking longer to get to market, falling behind the market & innovation coming from new leaner startups, frustrated employees & users, and with time the company becoming less and less relevant.
I don't think they are going to slow down innovation, I think they are just streamlining the process from inception to product. Less public focus on their cakes in the oven will allow them to not have to focus lots of resources on bad products simply because they are public and lots of alpha users have latched on to them.
There is lots of intrinsic innovation at Google, including the 20% rule.
I'm bummed. I like several of the graduates from their Labs.
I'm definitely bummed. And what is going to happen to all the labs I've currently enabled in gmail?
On one hand, it is sad because I think Labs was Google's kindle for innovation and exploring new areas. On the other hand, I think it make them look less professional and more like "tinkerers" with so many experiments in the open. This in turn makes them look less desirable to business enterprise. Overall I think the tinkerers will still tinker but it will be hidden under another disguise.
Hi +Alexia Tsotsis your article on TC today about google labs is damn good. I really liked the last line "Basically, less Waves and more Circles.". It makes more sense.
well, there goes the 20% time too bueno. I wonder if we'll see some sort of new open source space to have devs and users collaborate and drive innovation with popular add-ons 'graduating' into integration with existing Google products.
I think this will help them find focus. It will help change the image that Google products are in trial mode for years.
#RIP.#Google #Labs.Rip Google's Innovation Engine.RIP A innovative Company(Once).Long Live Page(Sucking)Rank
google should hire other programmers and keep running labs.. a lot of geeks are out there to volunteer too. .. i can't guess what might be going on through google head..
Thirteen years ago, Steve Jobs closed Apple's Advanced Technology Group (ATG).

This division created QuickTime, Spotlight (V-Twin) search and FireWire among other things. Also the first mass-distributed hyperlink programming platform, HyperCard.

Research & Development at Apple has certainly continued since 1997. A company doesn't need one division to innovate if every division does.
+Kumar Abinash Google doesn't employ volunteers. They're not looking for engineers desperate for a job or experience. They're looking for engineers who are turning down offers left and right. Only cash-strapped companies employ volunteers for any length of time.

Google can afford the financial costs of Google Labs. This isn't a cost-cutting measure; it's a strategic R&D decision.
Add a comment...