Live data from Hacker News

Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

paulbuchheit.blogspot.com

81–90 of 107 posts

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#81
post #27
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).

The general pattern I've seen with Microsoft is they mostly just copy other people's successes. Sometimes their copies do okay, or well enough. Sometimes they fail. But due to their huge install base and lock-in effects and user inertia and huge cash pile they have the ability to muddle onward. In some ways, Microsoft treats Apple as a sort of external UI R&D department, one with the wonderful quality that Microsoft doesn't have to pay the Apple folks anything, just copy whatever people seem to like. I do think they succeed enough, at the right things, that it keeps them shambling forward. But the same is true of a zombie.

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#82
post #79

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 som…

Engineers are creative and artistic people.

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#83
post #38
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.

Sure, but in that case it's worth pointing out that Google had Google before MS changed their search engine to be as similar to Google's as possible.

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#84
post #79

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 som…

Engineers are creative and artistic people.

No... engineers, like any other subset of people selected by profession, are a mix of creative/artistic and non creative/artistic people. And if you hire doing a huge selection pressure based on PHDs, ability to reply to strictly logical problems, and so forth, you are mounting a selective pressure that will get you with an environment where there are high logical skills but possibly deficiencies in other fields.

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#85
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.

Vista was 5 years late, overhyped, full of bugs and incompatibilities, slow and IMHO ugly.

For me it was the biggest failure I've seen since Netscape Navigator.

And while Windows 7 is not that bad, IMHO that's the next worst thing customers can say about your product.

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#86
post #2

I suspect risk taking is only encouraged outside their core business.

With what justification? Google has made numerous innovations in terms of search. Think Instant, Goggles, and their shiny new (painfully unusable) implementation of Image Search. Plus they've got a bunch of micro-innovations--the AROUND operator, for example, and the reading level filters.

Innovations are not necessarily a risk

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#87
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.

If you want to argue that we should take the long view with respect to Chrome and Android making money, then I would counter with needing to take the long view with respect to their being a success as well. The OP was (IMO) correct - a product's success, when done by a private company, is whether or not it improves the company's bottom line. I don't think that that claim can be made about Chrome or Android at the moment. I certainly doubt whether the little money they are currently making out of Android would not be largely blown aware by another allocation of that energy and resources.

That's not to say that in the long term these products don't end up being major successes, but until they start making money, that claim can't be made.

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#88
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.

Yes, but both of those are (I believe) technologies developed outside of Microsoft that were then purchased.

While Google and Apple do also purchase technologies, they seem to produce more interesting in-house products than Microsoft. At least in my perception.

I can't recall the last time that Microsoft actually developed internally and rolled out a significant "game changer" device or software.

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#89
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.

If you want to argue that we should take the long view with respect to Chrome and Android making money, then I would counter with needing to take the long view with respect to their being a success as well. The OP was (IMO) correct - a product's success, when done by a private company, is whether or not it improves the company's bottom line. I don't think that that claim can be made about Chrome or Android at the mom…

You should read some material on microeconomics and about complementary products. That's not arguing, it's how the economy currently works.

     a product's success ...
     is whether or not it improves the company's bottom line
Microsoft controlling the platform through Windows and IExplorer hasn't improved their bottom line?

RedHat paying high wages to highly skilled kernel hackers to work on (get this, open-source software) hasn't improved their bottom line?

     until they start making money, that claim can't be made
Because, you know, Apple and Microsoft installing Bing alternatives (Maps / Search) on their phone operating systems wouldn't affect Google in no way whatsoever.

http://www.businessweek.com/print/technology/content/jan2010...

I find it quite baffling actually that so many people are criticizing investments made by Google, Apple or Microsoft; These are big companies that grew to unimaginable levels in just a few years (with respect to oil mining which can take a few generations to reach a fraction of that size).

You should really learn from them, because not so many companies can achieve what they did ;-)

Re: Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome

#90
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).

I didn't mean that people ignore instances when Microsoft fails. I meant that failing is an accepted part of Microsoft's DNA. People didn't like Vista, but putting out an (arguably) busted OS didn't seem out of character for Microsoft.

That's just lowered expectations. They just don't put out quality innovation products and we're all used to that.
Post reply on HN