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

Google's Decline Really Bugs Me

blackhole12.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 290 posts

Re: Google's Decline Really Bugs Me

#111

Post by adventured »

bdavisx wrote: post #63
jdreaver wrote: post #19

> Larry Page worshiped Steve Jobs, who gave him a bunch of bad advice centered around maximizing profit. What is so bad about maximizing profit? If you make a profit, it means people are willingly giving you money for the service you provide. You make more profit when people feel they benefit more from your service. People can complain about Google until the end of time, but as long as the cash keeps flowing then Goo…

First off, I'm can't speak to Google's "maximizing profit" or what is wrong with Google doing it. I don't know anything about Google outside of what I read on the internet. I can speak firsthand to seeing what happens when a company tries to maximize profit -- actually two companies. One was a life insurance company with about 1,300 employees; another a tech company with around 500. The life insurance company was bou…

You're talking about short-term, temporary gains. There are two types of maximizing of profit: long term, and short term. The strategies required to execute them are polar opposites.

If the insurance company laid off productive workers that significantly contributed to their ability to earn a profit, then what you describe is the opposite of maximizing profit for the long haul. What it sounds like, is the insurance company got swallowed up by a vampire looking to suck the life out of it for a short term gain.

Re: Google's Decline Really Bugs Me

#112

Post by adventured »

alaskamiller wrote: post #93
mbennett wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The share price going up makes employees, former employees, and all sorts of non-"wall street investors" very happy. Sure it does, but when some of the profit increases are made by deliberately decreasing contrast of the background of the ads and avoiding borders to increase ad clicks, especially from old people who are unable to see contrast [0][1], that's when it crosses the line into "decline" of the user experie…

Micro$oft leveraged their market dominance to stifle competition. Google leverages their market dominance to... get more people to create more data with real names.

Microsoft leveraged their market dominance to distribute more copies of Windows and Office, not to stifle competition. Your statement makes it sound like you don't understand the profit motive.

Distributing more software is how they earn more money. The $ reveals what you think of Microsoft, and going by that, one would have to assume you think Microsoft's goal was to optimize profit. Optimizing profit would require distributing more copies of their software.

Re: Google's Decline Really Bugs Me

#113

Post by adventured »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #59
jdreaver wrote: post #19

> Larry Page worshiped Steve Jobs, who gave him a bunch of bad advice centered around maximizing profit. What is so bad about maximizing profit? If you make a profit, it means people are willingly giving you money for the service you provide. You make more profit when people feel they benefit more from your service. People can complain about Google until the end of time, but as long as the cash keeps flowing then Goo…

> You make more profit when people feel they benefit more from your service. // That's clearly not the only way to make more profit. If for example one has entrenched users and cuts the level of service markedly, or increases the cost, then profit increases. There is no need for anyone to benefit more other than the shareholders. You can also improve a service without charging more. Again profit and benefit will not…

"You can also improve a service without charging more. Again profit and benefit will not be directly correlated."

In your example, profit and benefit would in fact be directly correlated.

If you improve your service, without charging more, then more customers will want your product accordingly, and you will earn more profit all things being equal. In fact, this is one the most basic of all methods of earning more profit from an existing service or product: give customers a better service or product without raising prices, increasing the value proposition of your offering.

Re: Google's Decline Really Bugs Me

#114

Post by asveikau »

jonathonf wrote: post #12
wrongc0ntinent wrote: post #7

Back when I was showing off my Google T-shirt, this is what they were (archive.org): https://web.archive.org/web/20001203022500/http://www.google... A lot more's changed than just a CEO.

Tried and was disappointed I couldn't search the 2000-era web.

The old school yahoo style categorization of links works. I was pretty surprised, I used google back then and didn't remember them having that...

Re: Google's Decline Really Bugs Me

#115

Post by token_female »

alaskamiller wrote: post #93
mbennett wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The share price going up makes employees, former employees, and all sorts of non-"wall street investors" very happy. Sure it does, but when some of the profit increases are made by deliberately decreasing contrast of the background of the ads and avoiding borders to increase ad clicks, especially from old people who are unable to see contrast [0][1], that's when it crosses the line into "decline" of the user experie…

Micro$oft leveraged their market dominance to stifle competition. Google leverages their market dominance to... get more people to create more data with real names.

... to stifle Facebook. Next question?

Re: Google's Decline Really Bugs Me

#116

Post by dschiptsov »

It is not a decline, it is just "maturation" or even "over-ripeness".

Speaking for a decline, it is rather a decline of interest in "internets" in general and especially social networks in particular. It is no longer a "shiny new thing".

So, Google, as FB, are trying to squeeze everything what is left from G+ and its flagship Gmail, just because everything switches to mobile and a chat is a new email.

That is why they are pushing Hangouts and FB pushes Messenger, which both wants to hijack your SMS app. But chat apps are too simple and it is not so easy to push ads here, because users will just switch to less annoying rival's service.

So, let's say that it is a decline of browser-based "internets", and email as a default way of communication, not just Google or FB.

Re: Google's Decline Really Bugs Me

#118

Post by rhizome »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #38

What's with the sudden outpouring of Google-hate of late? I totally get that Google is changing, and has been doing so for a while. But I don't see that as "evil," and I'm struggling to see why anybody would. Google around maybe five or six years ago was a wasteland of shoddy, broken, unintegrated products, many with half-assed, confusing interfaces. That's been tightened up - many of their products are now substanti…

I totally get that Google is changing

They aren't changing, they have changed.

And, "unintegrated" is not necessarily a bad thing.

Re: Google's Decline Really Bugs Me

#119

Post by hindsightbias »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #38

What's with the sudden outpouring of Google-hate of late? I totally get that Google is changing, and has been doing so for a while. But I don't see that as "evil," and I'm struggling to see why anybody would. Google around maybe five or six years ago was a wasteland of shoddy, broken, unintegrated products, many with half-assed, confusing interfaces. That's been tightened up - many of their products are now substanti…

> Google-hate of late

It's just gotten hip of late. The lack of faith institutions is accelerating, almost as if by design.

Re: Google's Decline Really Bugs Me

#120

Post by nostrademons »

afhof wrote: post #97
mathattack wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does 20% realistically come between 80 and 100%, 100 and 120, or 120 and 140%?

100 and 120, at least in my brief experience. Coworkers start expecting 100% output from you, which means you are going to get a lesser review for putting out 80%. That they don't let you do 20% in the first 6 months there is what makes it so hard to start it back up.

This is hackable if you're strategic about it. The trick is to always make sure your coworkers are unblocked. If someone needs a code review, do it before your regular work. If someone's waiting on an e-mail response from you, send it first. If someone needs your CL to be in before they can proceed, make sure you get it in.

Then once everybody is unblocked, your time is yours. On a well-functioning team you still need to pick things up on your own initiative (eg. fix bugs, volunteer to take on new features), but in general you can do just enough to show activity, and don't need to worry about always being the best on the team. So that's your chance to do 20% work, or play with other technologies, or investigate other areas of Google.

Another tricky bit is making time for professional development and advancement, and the way to do this is to take advantage of the 6 month review cycle. Make sure you can demonstrate tangible accomplishments in the 1-2 months leading up to a review, then spend a couple months assimilating the big picture and learning the skills you need to get known as an expert on the team, and then use your newfound knowledge to improve the effectiveness of the team.

What people look for come perf time is "Does this person make my job easier, or harder?" As long as the answer for them is "easier", you'll get good reviews. That doesn't necessarily mean working flat out all the time, it means being mindful of the people around you and what they're hoping to accomplish and then making sure your actions are a help and not a hindrance.

Post reply on HN