The first time I realised that Google could fail at something was when I discovered a name I had never heard before: Orkut. It was a social network created by Google and launched in 2004—the same year Facebook was founded. Orkut became incredibly popular in countries like Brazil and India, boasting millions of users and a vibrant community. It had the early internet charm—messy, personal, and chaotic—and somehow, it worked.
However, Facebook scaled faster, with a cleaner interface and a more effective global strategy. Meanwhile, Orkut quietly faded from the spotlight. In 2014, Google shut it down completely. Most people didn’t even notice; many, like me, were unaware of its existence. That’s when it clicked for me: Google, the company behind Gmail, Maps, YouTube, and Search, could fail. Not just once, but multiple times. It wasn’t that they couldn’t create; rather, they couldn’t always sustain what they built.
So, I began to examine this phenomenon more closely. The more I looked, the more I realised that Orkut wasn’t an isolated incident—it was part of a larger pattern, and an unexpectedly long one at that. But before we dive into what Google missed, we need to discuss what it excelled at.
What Google Got Right
Before diving into what Google missed, let’s look at what it mastered. Gmail. Maps. Search. Chrome. YouTube. Android. These weren’t just successful products. They became part of everyday life.
Gmail became the go-to email service for over a billion users. Google Maps didn’t just replace paper maps but reshaped how you and I think about distance and time. (“It’s 8 minutes away” became more common than “It’s 2 miles from here.”) Chrome became the most-used browser in the world. Android took over mobile. And Search? Search became synonymous with the Internet.
What’s even more impressive: these tools became language. “Google it.” “Send it to my Gmail.” “Check it on Google Maps.” That’s a level of cultural adoption most companies only dream of.
And yet, here’s the twist. For every hit, there’s a long list of products that didn’t just underperform, but vanished. Sometimes overnight. Sometimes, while people were still relying on them.
So how can a company that consistently gets it right… also get it so wrong? Let’s look at some of Google’s most ambitious but short-lived experiments.
Google’s Big Ideas That Didn’t Last
Let’s start with Orkut. Unless you lived in Brazil or India around 2006, you might’ve never heard of it. But back then, Orkut wasn’t just a social network; it was the internet for millions of people.
Launched in 2004—the same year as Facebook—Orkut was Google’s first major push into social media. And for a while, it seemed to be working. It grew quickly, especially in emerging markets. People were using it, sharing on it, building communities. It had momentum.
But then it stalled. Google didn’t improve it. It didn’t invest in content moderation, better design, or building a stronger user culture. While Facebook kept innovating, Orkut stayed mostly the same. It became clunky, overrun with spam, and by the time Google noticed, users had already moved on.
Next came Google Buzz, a confusing social tool awkwardly baked into Gmail. It barely lasted two years. Then Google Wave, an experimental collaboration app that no one understood, and few knew how to use. It never made it out of beta.
And then came the biggest attempt: Google+. This was supposed to be the Facebook alternative. A full-scale social platform rolled out across Google’s entire ecosystem—from YouTube to Gmail to your basic Google account. But it never clicked. It felt like a feature pretending to be a community, without a clear audience or purpose.
Eventually, it faded out the way many Google projects do: a quiet shutdown post, a formal goodbye, and not much else.
One by one, these platforms were discontinued, each one joining a long list of short-lived products that users now half-jokingly call the “Google graveyard.” But it leaves a real question behind: How can a company that built Gmail, Maps, and Search—tools we still use every day—struggle so much to get social right?
Why Did These Big Projects Fail?
It’s tempting to blame bad luck, bad timing, or the market. Google didn’t fail at social media because it lacked money or talent. It failed because it lacked direction. Most of the products that were shut down were not technical failures; they were cultural ones. It never really understood people the way Facebook did.
Where Facebook was obsessively focused on human behaviour — how we connect, what we like, what keeps us scrolling — Google was focused on systems. It focused on systems, speed, and solving logical problems with clean engineering.
So when it came time to build something emotional and unpredictable—like a social network—Google approached it like an engineering puzzle. Not a cultural one.
You could see it in the way Google+ was designed. Every circle, every profile, every button felt optimised for neatness, not delight. It was a product that prioritised control in a space that thrives on mess and spontaneity.
Then there was the problem inside Google itself. At Google, teams operate like mini-startups. They often worked in silos, competing instead of collaborating.
One former employee described it this way: “We had two different messaging apps being built at the same time, and they weren’t allowed to talk to each other.” That’s how you get things like Allo, Duo, Hangouts, Chat, Voice… all competing, overlapping, and eventually getting shut down.
And looming over it all was the Facebook effect.
The pressure to “beat” Facebook led Google to rush out products that weren’t fully baked. Google Buzz launched with privacy holes big enough to trigger lawsuits. Google+ forced integration onto YouTube users who never wanted it. The goal wasn’t to build something people loved but to compete. And that made users feel like collateral damage.
What Google’s Failures Say About Big Tech
When you take a step back, Google’s long list of abandoned projects isn’t just a fluke. It’s a pattern, and it’s not unique to Google.
Across the tech world, we’ve seen the same cycle repeat: launch fast, pivot faster, shut down quietly. New ideas are rolled out with fanfare, tested on users, and quickly discarded if they don’t take off. Not improved. Not refined. Just cut.
This isn’t about experimentation but impatience.
Think of Meta’s shifting metaverse plans, Amazon’s short-lived phone, or the endless stream of messaging apps from every major company. Each one launched with big promises and internal hype. But most were gone before they had a real chance to evolve. Because real growth takes time. And time doesn’t always fit into quarterly earnings reports.
But the impact goes beyond business decisions. When a product disappears, it doesn’t just fade from the cloud but also from someone’s daily life. That’s what happens when ambition isn’t matched with care.
This isn’t just a Google problem. It’s a tech problem — a way of building that treats products as disposable. That values speed over depth. And that too often calls something a failure just because it didn’t scale.
