Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

paulbuchheit.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 107 posts

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#41

Post by amichail »

nostrademons wrote: post #18
amichail wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was there any third party computation/ui? Such a feature would fit nicely with the app engine to provide third party computation/ui to enhance the core search results. User feedback would determine which third party code is run by default for various queries/contexts. Third party developers would make more money when their code is executed more often.

Yeah, it was totally third-party, and labeled as such. I have no idea how the technology behind it worked - I was just a user, not a developer.

It should not require you to subscribe. User feedback (possibly implicit) should be used to determine what third party code is used for which queries/contexts by default.

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#42

Post by fjarlq »

sriramk wrote: post #27
gfunk911 wrote: 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…

Microsoft fails constantly and people accept it? :) I would argue the exact opposite - Microsoft succeeds consistently in a lot of very measurable ways but isn't given enough credit for it (that a Google/Apple would get for doing the very same thing).

Care to list some examples? (Not that I disagree)

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#43

Post by paul »

ohashi wrote: post #40
paul wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Clearly the money is coming from somewhere :)

Using that advantage to invest in the future is the right way to build a long-term business. Focusing only on milking the current business is what leads a company to eventual disruption and collapse (because something new will come along that hurts the old business).

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#44

Post by erikpukinskis »

mattmanser wrote: post #24

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…

Also Chrome and Android are not successes... The key ingredient to a success for a company is some MONEY

Android is profitable, which is pretty impressive for such a big project. I'm not sure how big the team is, but it's gotta be many hundreds, if not thousands of people.

And Chrome is probably profitable too. Google pays Mozilla Corp somewhere north of $50 million a year. Chrome has about a quarter of FF's share, so they're making Google at least $12.5m/year. Probably much more, given that Google surely profits off of their Firefox deal. Not sure how big their dev team is, but it was apparently only four in '08. Even if it's 20 people now, that's probably a million dollars in revenue per employee.

Seriously, if you started a phone OS business that went from 0 handsets to being the 2nd best selling phone OS in the world in two years and hit profitability in the same timeframe, you wouldn't consider that a financial success?

And tell Flock that a 10% share of the web browser market is financial failure.

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#45

Post by jrockway »

The thing about taking risks is spot-on. I noticed that where I work, every project is treated as though failure would mean death to the company; there is no agility or experimentation, and projects that should die because they suck last forever because failure is absolutely not an option. If we said, "hey, let's try this out" once in a while, we would have a lot better technology.

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#46

Post by smokinn »

bigbang wrote: post #38
smokinn wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The gp's post was about risk, not innovation. The path Google is going down now (adding more features and bloat into their results) is risky because a lot of the population likes how simple and easy to use Google is. The more features they add, the more confusing it gets and if someone comes along with a much simpler interface and a new idea that gives better results they're in trouble.

Bing innovating on features is good for Bing because it differentiates them. Google copying those features is risky because it diverges from the simplicity they're famous for and makes them look like they're playing catch-up.

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#47

Post by potatolicious »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #44
mattmanser wrote: post #24

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…

Also Chrome and Android are not successes... The key ingredient to a success for a company is some MONEY Android is profitable, which is pretty impressive for such a big project. I'm not sure how big the team is, but it's gotta be many hundreds, if not thousands of people. And Chrome is probably profitable too. Google pays Mozilla Corp somewhere north of $50 million a year. Chrome has about a quarter of FF's share, s…

Not only is Android profitable, but dominance and prominence on a consumer device makes it that much easier for Google to push its other products.

Think about Maps on Android vs. iPhone - one is a lot more full featured and up to date with Google's tech than the other. Android being the de facto standard smartphone platform would be immensely useful to Google's other products.

e.g. Google Voice simply does not integrate well into the Apple user experience, but does so flawlessly on Android.

Google is vertically integrating the entire stack between them and the user - this is a great thing for Google, and not every link in the chain needs to make money doing it.

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#48

Post by [deleted] »

fjarlq wrote: post #42
sriramk wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft fails constantly and people accept it? :) I would argue the exact opposite - Microsoft succeeds consistently in a lot of very measurable ways but isn't given enough credit for it (that a Google/Apple would get for doing the very same thing).

Care to list some examples? (Not that I disagree)

[deleted]

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#49

Post by jdp23 »

paul wrote: post #29
mattmanser wrote: post #24

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.

There's a big difference between "opportunity cost" and "risk". Wave had huge potential upside and I completely agree that it's a good example of Google looking to go big; but they approached it in a risk-averse way, and it didn't work out.

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#50

Post by spenrose »

Hhmm. You didn't actually mention my first reason (though #3 is sort of related): Google creates more value than it captures. Remember the Web in '98? Remember domain name bidding wars, because typing "www.shopping.com" into the address bar was actually a plausible strategy for attempting to buy something online, because search basically didn't work? Google made search work, which made the Internet work, which changed millions of lives and created many more billions in value than they have ever booked as revenue. Wave was an attempt to fix the way hundreds of millions of people work. They are trying to substantially improve the way we get around the planet. Succeed or fail, Google persistently tries to make the world a better place. How many companies can say that?
Post reply on HN