Live data from Hacker News

Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

paulbuchheit.blogspot.com

31–40 of 107 posts

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#31

I think equating Wave to a 'big' risk is a bit much, financially there was no risk. All they lost was face. Also Chrome and Android are not successes, Google Adwords is a success, MS Office is a success, MS Windows is a success. The key ingredient to a success for a company is some MONEY. Anything else is just showing off. I'm still very disappointed with the follow through on Wave and Buzz, a bit of PR and a few man…

I was under the impression that Android was profitable by itself- though I'm not sure where the money is coming from. Certification/contract work with manufacturers?

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#32

I think equating Wave to a 'big' risk is a bit much, financially there was no risk. All they lost was face. Also Chrome and Android are not successes, Google Adwords is a success, MS Office is a success, MS Windows is a success. The key ingredient to a success for a company is some MONEY. Anything else is just showing off. I'm still very disappointed with the follow through on Wave and Buzz, a bit of PR and a few man…

At some point, you have to acknowledge that you lost. It's much better to do that than to force people to work on something that everybody knows lost, or at least is worse than the competition. That's what 'follow-through' amounts to. One way that Google is still even vaguely an acceptable place to work is that it allows a fair amount of freedom about what to work on, and nobody good wants to work on something that clearly lost.

Also, it's unclear that success is measured by direct profit from that project. For example, the world with Android is clearly much more promising for Google's continued revenue growth than one without Android. Mainly, Google is the only company with the software chops to write and maintain iPhone-clone software that even vaguely works and the cash and testicles to negotiate with carriers. If Google didn't continue to bang hard on Android, all the non-iPhone smartphones would suck fairly seriously, and Apple would probably cut pretty seriously into Google's ad profits, despite Apple's ads not being as effective, purely because Apple controlled the dominant smartphone platform. Apple might also have a much stronger influence over the tablet web experience, beyond than just having written the first tablet web browser that worked.

(Disclaimer: I like iOS better than Android, having owned both.)

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Instant was under development, we had an office pool for "How long will it be before Instant is rolled back, and why?", and two of the most popular answers were "2 days - user revolt" and "1 month - global search outage". Of course, anyone who voted there has egg on their face now because it was a successful launch with relatively few problems, which is mostly a credit to the teams involved and the hard work the…

Just watching that process from a distance internally was a good lesson for me in product development. Normally I'd expect that if an idea is generally good, people will kinda like the first version, until after gradual iteration eventually they love it. For some things, that's just not true. With the iterations of Instant over months, I saw coworkers go from "argh I hate this I hope it never launches" to "wow, this…

This is really interesting: certain kinds of features and projects suck until they're good. A steeply sloped sigmoid of suckage.

Why did the people working on Instant persevere despite their coworkers' reactions? Was it because they had a clear end-vision of awesomeness, and they knew they just hadn't implemented to that point yet? Or was it more intuitive, a sense that there was awesomeness somewhere in parameter space, and that they could get there with continued iteration?

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#34
post #25

In retrospect Google is the new type of Einstein and Tesla and it is very exciting to be living right now with all their new pushes in inovation. Paul, would you mind sharing the title of the new google book?

I've probably already said too much about the book ;)

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#36
post #4

Great article. Choosing a place where people appreciate honest criticism works for friendships as well. My biggest criteria for friends is that the person is cool with honesty, including telling them when they're wrong. Interesting point about how if you never fail, you're too conservative. The same idea applies to poker. Microsoft fails constantly and people accept it, yet every Google failure means they've lost the…

People accept that Microsoft fails? Does the name "Windows Vista" mean anything to you? Of all the reactions people had to that version, "acceptance" isn't on the list.

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#37
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just watching that process from a distance internally was a good lesson for me in product development. Normally I'd expect that if an idea is generally good, people will kinda like the first version, until after gradual iteration eventually they love it. For some things, that's just not true. With the iterations of Instant over months, I saw coworkers go from "argh I hate this I hope it never launches" to "wow, this…

This is really interesting: certain kinds of features and projects suck until they're good. A steeply sloped sigmoid of suckage. Why did the people working on Instant persevere despite their coworkers' reactions? Was it because they had a clear end-vision of awesomeness, and they knew they just hadn't implemented to that point yet? Or was it more intuitive, a sense that there was awesomeness somewhere in parameter sp…

It's actually more interesting than that: several of the key people working on the project believed it was impossible and could never succeed.

The short answer to your question is "because Larry and Sergey really wanted it". It's amazing how much attention projects that the founders are personally interested in get.

That would be very misleading, though, because it's not like anyone was forced to work on Instant, nor is the typical Googler a mindless automaton who always does what he's told. Everyone who worked on Instant was there because they wanted to work on Instant, even the ones who felt it didn't have a prayer of success.

The longer answer is that Google's created a culture that tolerates ambiguity remarkably well. Y'know how they say that it's a sign of intelligence (and insanity) to be able to hold multiple conflicting ideas in your head at once? That's the same drive that lets people say "I think this is a terrible idea, and it'll never succeed...but it's interesting, and it deserves an honest chance, so let me help you with that." Strong opinions lightly held.

This starts with the hiring process, I think, which tends to select for people who can appreciate nuance and tend to explore lots of technologies outside those that are immediately useful to them (contrary to popular opinion, Google does not solely care about GPA and alma mater when hiring). Then new recruits get to the Googleplex, and they're immersed in a culture that's just awash in ideas, most of which are terrible, and all of which are listened to. When you see that your coworker's reaction to the brain-dead idea that was just spouted forth is "Hmm. That's interesting - what could you do to test that and develop it?" instead of "That's stupid and it'll never work", you start to reevaluate your snap judgments. And of course, if you work there for any length of time, you'll see a number of those stupid ideas actually launch and become giant successes with millions of users.

I remember clearly telling my coworker, about Instant, "I think it's a terrible idea and will fail miserably, but I am really, really glad that I work in a company where we can place these sorts of bets."

I wish more places had a culture like this. FaceBook, I've heard, has it. So do many prominent investors in Silicon Valley, and I wonder if that's where Google got it. Top-flight research labs and universities do too. But it's sorely lacking in the general public, and on Reddit, and among our politicians & government, and in many big corporations. It, unfortunately, is not the sort of thing you can pick up from a book or a few blog or forum posts. You really have to be immersed in the culture to absorb it, and even then, your natural inclination is going to say "This is stupid" to most new ideas. It seems to take a lot of mental effort to suspend that judgment and say "Well, this sure looks stupid, but I'll stick with it a little longer and see where it ends up."

I've found, though, that that culture is perhaps the most valuable thing that I've gotten out of my time at Google.

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#38
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instant?

Also, that preview window thing you get when you click in the description text. Personally, it annoys the hell out of me because I'm a compulsive clicker and I really wish there was some way to turn it off permanently but it's definitely another example of a change made to core search.

Bing had search result preview window much before Google.

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#39
post #36
post #4

Great article. Choosing a place where people appreciate honest criticism works for friendships as well. My biggest criteria for friends is that the person is cool with honesty, including telling them when they're wrong. Interesting point about how if you never fail, you're too conservative. The same idea applies to poker. Microsoft fails constantly and people accept it, yet every Google failure means they've lost the…

People accept that Microsoft fails? Does the name "Windows Vista" mean anything to you? Of all the reactions people had to that version, "acceptance" isn't on the list.

To be fair, I can't imagine Google fucking up web search or AdWords without receiving the same kind of criticism. We can shrug it off when Google fucks up Wave, or when Microsoft fucks up Kin, as long as products like AdWords and Windows keep making money.

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#40
post #29

I think equating Wave to a 'big' risk is a bit much, financially there was no risk. All they lost was face. Also Chrome and Android are not successes, Google Adwords is a success, MS Office is a success, MS Windows is a success. The key ingredient to a success for a company is some MONEY. Anything else is just showing off. I'm still very disappointed with the follow through on Wave and Buzz, a bit of PR and a few man…

Chrome and Android are both a huge success. Google takes a long-term view which doesn't require every product to immediately pay for itself, which is very smart. The long term value of owning these platforms is immense. Also, your notion that "Wave was not a risk" is similarly mistaken. The opportunity cost of having a large team of smart people working for several years is enormous.

Do you think such a long term view is allowed because of the legacy of figuring out search engine advertising?
Post reply on HN