Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome • Hacker News Board

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#71

Post by jackowayed » Wed, Dec 22, 2010, 7:26 AM UTC

Fjslfj wrote: post #65

paul wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Y Combinator and FriendFeed don't count, naturally. Somehow, they don't go in the "job" category the same way other jobs do.

This implicitly means Facebook does count. You don't have to answer this one. In light of YC's recent tie-up with Facebook, it's good to see that there might very well be a voice of caution within the organization.

Note that he said "Google was the only one where me speaking my mind never seemed to cause a problem." So he's not necessarily implying that all criticism is wholly rejected at Facebook, just that his criticism sometimes caused problems.

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#72

Post by known » Wed, Dec 22, 2010, 7:28 AM UTC

One word: Intrapreneurship

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#73

Post by speleding » Wed, Dec 22, 2010, 8:59 AM UTC

IMHO the main reason Google will remain a force to be reckoned with is that they have 10000 driven and highly skilled individuals on board with the right experience. That trumps all arguments the article provides.

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#74

Post by joelhaus » Wed, Dec 22, 2010, 9:04 AM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #37

davi wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thanks for this gem of a comment. It's encouraging to hear that this sort of culture actually can exist in a large organization. Especially related to/enjoyed this at the end:

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."

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#75

Post by fuzzythinker » Wed, Dec 22, 2010, 9:10 AM UTC

random42 wrote: post #53

fjarlq wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

1. Project Natal/Kinect 2. Surface Table Both are good innovations, on which media would go over gaga, had they come from Apple/Google.

Kinect is a game changer, but most of its credit should be given to the company MS obtained the technology from.

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#76

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Dec 22, 2010, 9:22 AM UTC

[deleted]

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#77

Post by zaidf » Wed, Dec 22, 2010, 9:26 AM UTC

fuzzythinker wrote: post #75

random42 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Project Natal/Kinect 2. Surface Table Both are good innovations, on which media would go over gaga, had they come from Apple/Google.

Kinect is a game changer, but most of its credit should be given to the company MS obtained the technology from.

From an academic point of view, perhaps. Bit from a business point of view, the credit goes to Microsoft for recognizing a hot piece of technology, acquiring it and launching it as a cool product. Each one of those things are more difficult than you seem to give them credit for.

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#78

Post by gregschlom » Wed, Dec 22, 2010, 10:21 AM UTC

sz wrote: post #63

random42 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Project Natal/Kinect 2. Surface Table Both are good innovations, on which media would go over gaga, had they come from Apple/Google.

How was Surface a success where Wave wasn't?

We can't really talk about the sucess or failure of Surface, actually. Microsoft sold a few of them at $12,000 each to hotels, luxury stores, etc... but never intended to make it a mass-consumer product.

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#79

Post by antirez » Wed, Dec 22, 2010, 10:34 AM UTC

What I think Google could hugely benefit from, is stop hiring too much PHD & engineering-type people. I think they have a cultural problem that has the effect of many consumer products they develop (where the technology is not the only important ingredient) to don't work: you can't rule the "social" world from the nerd-point-of-view, seriously. Get creative/artistic people into the mix, and Google could turn into some magical stuff again.

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#80

Post by rahoulb » Wed, Dec 22, 2010, 10:45 AM UTC

mccutchen wrote: post #67

sriramk wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kinect was on the top of my list. When I used Kinect, it seemed quite magical (and I'm jaded enough that few pieces of tech makes me go that way). I really suspect a Kinect from Apple would have been handled differently.

You're probably right. But you've got to admit that Apple itself makes its products seem much more magical than Microsoft does. They do such a good job that it's really easy for the media to pick it up and run with it. Nearly all of Microsoft's own promotional stuff is extraordinarily bad, especially in comparison to Apple.

A big problem Microsoft has is their pre-announcements.

They will announce stuff before it's ready so when it does arrive there's no buzz about it. BUT it's a necessary culture for them because of the way their business interdepends upon their partners.