Live data from Hacker News

Google’s “20% time,” which brought you Gmail and AdSense, is now as good as dead

qz.com

71–80 of 498 posts

Re: Google’s “20% time,” which brought you Gmail and AdSense, is now as good as dead

#71
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It boggles my mind, given the big money involved, why so many people continue to bet huge sums of cash on the proven short-term penny-wise/pound-foolish idiocy of MBA-think. I mean sure-- if your company is under cash flow pressure you have to pinch pennies. You have no choice. Spreadsheet says so, and spreadsheet's the boss. But if you're not, you should be investing and thinking long term cause the other guys proba…

> I'm convinced its pure cronyism and ass-covering. I'm convinced it's not. Betting on the long term at the expense of the short term is incredibly hard. Even the smartest people in the world will panic (and in some cases pivot) when doubts start to creep into their mind. I am sure all of us have been in a similar situation. It's always easy to judge from the outside but on the inside those decisions are tough, lonel…

I'd believe you if the folks I'm recalling had a good track record of having built successful businesses, or if their thinking struck me as... well... thinking, rather than cargo cultism. I know what it looks like when a person is thinking -- even fallaciously or sloppily, but still rubbing neurons together -- and I know what it looks like when a person is bullshitting to give the appearance of thought when they really have nothing at all going on upstairs. Buzzwords divorced from meaning and used without proper context are a dead giveaway for cargo-cult thinking.

Now granted, I know far more about programming than business. I can spot a cargo cult programmer after three sentences. In business it takes me a lot longer, maybe 6-12 months of working with someone. But by then if I've watched the cargo cultism long enough I can be pretty sure that's what I'm seeing, and I stop giving the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes when someone repeatedly seems like an intellectual impostor, it's because they are.

"Even the smartest people in the world will panic (and in some cases pivot) when doubts start to creep into their mind."

I think that's a lame excuse. Maybe my expectations are irrational, but I expect the kind of people who get millions or tens of millions of dollars to experiment with to be fighter pilots, not bus drivers. And if you wreck the ten million dollar plane, you don't get to fly another right away. Someone else gets a turn.

I also expect them to be smarter than me. When I talk to them I should have the feeling I've talked to an intellectual superior, not an impostoring dumbass.

It downright offends me to see the American middle class collapsing and people with no jobs while this shit goes on. If you're an entrepreneur, you're a working stiff too. Your job is to create value, and probably jobs, by building new businesses. When ordinary working stiffs screw up they get passed over or fired. When these guys screw up they get promoted -- or at least endless second chances.

I think what it boils down to is credentialism and cronyism rather than performance-based investing. If I were an investor I would split my odds between two areas: taking a chance on newbies, and investing in people with proven track records. But I would not repeatedly invest in people with poor track records just because their resume says "MIT Sloan School of Business."

Yeah, it's a rant. You're talking to a war veteran here. I also earned these war stories in the Boston metro area, and have heard a fair number from a friend in New York. I've been told that this problem is worse on the East Coast due to the absolute worship of ivy league degrees and in-group connections there. The West Coast is more meritocratically-focused. Never lived or worked there, but the culture I've seen in the West supports that notion.

Re: Google’s “20% time,” which brought you Gmail and AdSense, is now as good as dead

#72
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this anti Google propaganda? I can't see a single point that is not reasonable enough on its own merit, and none of them applies to Google alone, but to all search engine providers.

First and foremost it's off-topic. Second, these are the same citations used by those who were pushing for the FTC to sue Google for antitrust, so they have political baggage, third: it's before the company was founded so it's all academic and theoretical with no actual experience behind it, fourth: context matters - choice quotes from long texts have been used for Google bashing before, some earlier this week even.

no, it's confirmed now that he's just crazy. Dude, get an objective bone in your body, otherwise you're just a crusader.

Not everyone cares about whatever is going on in antitrust, but if you're not objective, you have no argument.

Re: Google’s “20% time,” which brought you Gmail and AdSense, is now as good as dead

#73
post #25
post #18

Few people remember it, but the same thing happened at HP. It used to be that HP engineers were expressly given Friday afternoons and full access to company resources to just play with new ideas. Among other things, this led to HP owning the printer market. Then "professional" management came in and killed the proverbial goose. They had to focus more on the "bottom line". To do what was easy to measure and track, rat…

It boggles my mind, given the big money involved, why so many people continue to bet huge sums of cash on the proven short-term penny-wise/pound-foolish idiocy of MBA-think. I mean sure-- if your company is under cash flow pressure you have to pinch pennies. You have no choice. Spreadsheet says so, and spreadsheet's the boss. But if you're not, you should be investing and thinking long term cause the other guys proba…

Who says this has anything to do with money? I thing the decision is more about a new strategy - focus instead of experimentation.

Personally I think this makes sense. 20% time was great when you're a small company trying to see what works. When you're a big company, you usually get disrupted because you lost focus.

Re: Google’s “20% time,” which brought you Gmail and AdSense, is now as good as dead

#74
post #19

"if 20% time has been abandoned at Google, are other companies, which reportedly include Apple, LinkedIn, 3M and a host of others, wise to continue trying to copy it?" That's incorrect, AFAIK 3M were the first company to pioneer this approach (with 15% of time spent on self-directed projects). For example see: http://www.fastcodesign.com/1663137/how-3m-gave-everyone-day... Talking to a friend at 3M (who has been ther…

> Nonetheless the tradition allowing self-directed research continues at 3M - and this might mean using lab resources, or creating prototypes without getting approval. And get hours paid for it, even it being extra hours you wouldn't do other way.

"And get hours paid for it,"

I don't work there, but I feel pretty safe in saying 3M researchers are not hourly employees.

Re: Google’s “20% time,” which brought you Gmail and AdSense, is now as good as dead

#75
post #6

It probably made more sense to have 20% time when Google didn't have tens of thousands of engineers. When you have a few hundred really smart people all working in the same building back in the early 2000's in Mountain View, it was I imagine a different thing than it would be now.

I think there may be some truth to this. With a company as large as Google, it may no longer be as beneficial to give everyone 20% time. Instead it's better to take the best engineers (and probably most innovative) and give them 100% time in Google X.

Re: Google’s “20% time,” which brought you Gmail and AdSense, is now as good as dead

#76
post #25
post #18

Few people remember it, but the same thing happened at HP. It used to be that HP engineers were expressly given Friday afternoons and full access to company resources to just play with new ideas. Among other things, this led to HP owning the printer market. Then "professional" management came in and killed the proverbial goose. They had to focus more on the "bottom line". To do what was easy to measure and track, rat…

It boggles my mind, given the big money involved, why so many people continue to bet huge sums of cash on the proven short-term penny-wise/pound-foolish idiocy of MBA-think. I mean sure-- if your company is under cash flow pressure you have to pinch pennies. You have no choice. Spreadsheet says so, and spreadsheet's the boss. But if you're not, you should be investing and thinking long term cause the other guys proba…

These sorts of stunts also damage the company's and ecosystem's reputation. Its hard enough to get big customers to give startups a chance anyway (and I remember reading that big company buy in is one of the biggest issues in the U.K. startup scene, which I'm sure is not unique).

Re: Google’s “20% time,” which brought you Gmail and AdSense, is now as good as dead

#77
post #18

Few people remember it, but the same thing happened at HP. It used to be that HP engineers were expressly given Friday afternoons and full access to company resources to just play with new ideas. Among other things, this led to HP owning the printer market. Then "professional" management came in and killed the proverbial goose. They had to focus more on the "bottom line". To do what was easy to measure and track, rat…

Businesses that make material goods like 3M and Corning _have_ to innovate. If you don't keep innovating, you're going to lose your lead in established products (post-it notes, corningware) to China or WallMart. Apple has a similar story with Android phones. Keep innovating or get your low-end eaten. Google doesn't have to innovate. They're already China. If somebody makes something they like, they'll buy it. Or make…

The main difference in my mind is that innovation in software is relatively cheap compared to innovation in material goods. With material goods, the only way to know if your innovation works is to make a bunch of it and hope it sells. Software just wastes a little employee time and maybe a bit of server space/bandwidth. Plus, with software even if the whole project fails you can often recover parts of it to use elsewhere.

Re: Google’s “20% time,” which brought you Gmail and AdSense, is now as good as dead

#78
My previous employer had a 10% time in place - which while in theory was a great idea, I found myself always too busy to take advantage of the time. This is in no fault to my employer, or my direct management - but lets face it - at a startup, there is little room to not be working. When you already are coding long hours, trying to make quick changes, implementing new features constantly - there just isn't enough time to do it.

Re: Google’s “20% time,” which brought you Gmail and AdSense, is now as good as dead

#79
Businesses don't live and grow forever. They have a lifecycle, and when they get big enough and their business model becomes mature enough, they divert resources away from risky innovation and toward defending the fortune they've amassed, defending their primary cash cow products against competition through anticompetitive practices like patent litigation, and promising steady returns to shareholders. The problem is, this swing toward conservatism tends to fossilize both the product and the organization.

If you fully de-risk your company, it will stagnate. No risk, no reward either. And in Google's quest to kill Microsoft, they are becoming Microsoft.

Re: Google’s “20% time,” which brought you Gmail and AdSense, is now as good as dead

#80
This always happens when large companies assert more control in the form of analytic analysis on the productivity of virtually everything. When you are building a pipeline which must be efficient, analytic analysis / statistical analysis plays a huge role in improving efficiency, but it's also a stifling factor when it pertains to the creativity of new solutions.

Google previously focused more on the creativity of new better solutions to an array of different verticals. Now they are focusing on the creativity of their own "super-man-team" instead of the "our peoples make crazy stuff, we hire amazing people" and let them go at it in their spare time and build innovative projects.

Maybe this time marks a period in Google's future where they stop innovating in a disruptive fashion.

Post reply on HN