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

Google’s Greatest Strength May Be the Luxury of Failure

blogs.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 31 posts

Re: Google’s Greatest Strength May Be the Luxury of Failure

#21

Post by michaelochurch »

dewitt wrote: post #18
michaelochurch wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We agree. I am all for "lots and lots of experimental products". Calibration scores (secret performance reviews that happen in the Perf Room-- yes, Google has a physical place for "calibration" that is actually called "The Perf Room") are not experimental technology or product. They're an experiment (and a failed one) on people. Different rules together.

Odd. I've been doing eng management at Google for the better part of a decade and I've never heard the term "Perf Room" before, nor did an internal search turn anything up. Maybe it is used, but at the very least I'm unaware of it. I realize you worked there for a few months a few years ago, but I think someone might have been pulling your leg if they told you that phrase. (But you're right, like most meetings at Goo…

Why can't Google just grow a pair and go to full-on open allocation?

If people actually get together in conference rooms to conspire against their employees and wreck peoples' careers, as you've admitted they do, that's not only wrong but a sign that lots of time is being wasted.

Re: Google’s Greatest Strength May Be the Luxury of Failure

#22

Post by timedoctor »

mtdewcmu wrote: post #14

"The lesson may be that a broad focus on innovation and solving big problems leads to resiliency." That would be an interesting conclusion if there was a good reason to believe it, but the article didn't make much of a case. How many of Google's off-the-wall projects are contributing to their 30% year-over-year quarterly revenue growth? Most of the projects mentioned were either market failures or haven't been releas…

Microsoft has the luxury of failure also, but when they tried to compete with Google they failed. Microsoft are in the same markets that Google makes a huge amount of money from and yet they failed on most fronts.

I think the safest way for Google to make money would be to not innovate or create any off the wall projects, and then just return the money the money to shareholders through dividends or share buybacks.

Just looking at the current stock price of Google $909 and Earnings per share of $33, this means that IF Google returned the entire earnings to shareholders it would take 27 years for the shareholders to get their money back and THEN after this 27 years they would start to get a return on their investment. This assumes no growth, and Google has grown significantly but there is no guarantee they will grow in the future. Even if they do grow significantly it will still take a very long time to get your investment back.

There are unknowns that could completely disrupt Google's business models for example what if all search became voice based (siri-like) with better AI. Or what if a competitor develops much better AI capabilities into their search.

Re: Google’s Greatest Strength May Be the Luxury of Failure

#23

Post by raldi »

michaelochurch wrote: post #2

Technological experiments often call for risk-seeking and adventure, but when it comes to things that affect other people, a more conservative and level-headed approach is necessary. For example, the utter recklessness involved in deploying calibration scores and shuttering 20% time is deplorable. That's an extreme lapse of professional responsibility. (Sorry if this irritating, but as a matter of principle, I must k…

I would usually hesitate to make a cartoon reference on Hacker News, but I really feel it's called for at this time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73GOfY0Ab9g

Re: Google’s Greatest Strength May Be the Luxury of Failure

#24

Post by dragonwriter »

michaelochurch wrote: post #4
phreeza wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have some kind of script set up to alert you any time a story mentioning Google makes the front page?

No, but that's a good idea. Thanks for that. I have an important job to do, which is to try to save Google (although I will probably fail) from the people who are trying to destroy it. Even though I left that place and will almost certainly never go back, it's too important a company to let it fall to ashes.

> I have an important job to do, which is to try to save Google (although I will probably fail) from the people who are trying to destroy it.

Its probably not healthy to delude yourself into thinking you have an "important job" that centers around your -- clearly quite bad -- relationship with Google.

If you want to show the error of Google's ways, the approach you've been taking on HN simply isn't it; if you could manage the emotional distance to try rational analysis and argumentation I'd suggest that, but it doesn't seem like that is likely. Perhaps try doing something unconnected with Google that demonstrates a better way, and point to that.

Re: Google’s Greatest Strength May Be the Luxury of Failure

#25

Post by dragonwriter »

michaelochurch wrote: post #21
dewitt wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Odd. I've been doing eng management at Google for the better part of a decade and I've never heard the term "Perf Room" before, nor did an internal search turn anything up. Maybe it is used, but at the very least I'm unaware of it. I realize you worked there for a few months a few years ago, but I think someone might have been pulling your leg if they told you that phrase. (But you're right, like most meetings at Goo…

Why can't Google just grow a pair and go to full-on open allocation? If people actually get together in conference rooms to conspire against their employees and wreck peoples' careers, as you've admitted they do, that's not only wrong but a sign that lots of time is being wasted.

> Why can't Google just grow a pair and go to full-on open allocation?

From the description, calibration seems to address the issue of consistent assessment across the company. Open allocation, whatever else it might have going for it, doesn't seem to do that (and for open allocation to work effectively in a large organization, consistent assessment would seem to be, if not essential, highly desirable; even without headcount concerns, churn between projects and getting new people up to speed is a cost that needs to be justified by expected value.)

> If people actually get together in conference rooms to conspire against their employees and wreck peoples' careers, as you've admitted they do

That's actually not what the poster above you said, and I really think that if you can't read anything about Google without being distracted from what is actually said by the white-hot heat of your pre-existing hatred (however justified that hatred moght be), you probably should just avoid participating in any discussions about Google, because you aren't going to be able to contribute productively.

Re: Google’s Greatest Strength May Be the Luxury of Failure

#26

Post by [deleted] »

timedoctor wrote: post #22
mtdewcmu wrote: post #14

"The lesson may be that a broad focus on innovation and solving big problems leads to resiliency." That would be an interesting conclusion if there was a good reason to believe it, but the article didn't make much of a case. How many of Google's off-the-wall projects are contributing to their 30% year-over-year quarterly revenue growth? Most of the projects mentioned were either market failures or haven't been releas…

Microsoft has the luxury of failure also, but when they tried to compete with Google they failed. Microsoft are in the same markets that Google makes a huge amount of money from and yet they failed on most fronts. I think the safest way for Google to make money would be to not innovate or create any off the wall projects, and then just return the money the money to shareholders through dividends or share buybacks. Ju…

[deleted]

Re: Google’s Greatest Strength May Be the Luxury of Failure

#27

Post by mtdewcmu »

timedoctor wrote: post #22
mtdewcmu wrote: post #14

"The lesson may be that a broad focus on innovation and solving big problems leads to resiliency." That would be an interesting conclusion if there was a good reason to believe it, but the article didn't make much of a case. How many of Google's off-the-wall projects are contributing to their 30% year-over-year quarterly revenue growth? Most of the projects mentioned were either market failures or haven't been releas…

Microsoft has the luxury of failure also, but when they tried to compete with Google they failed. Microsoft are in the same markets that Google makes a huge amount of money from and yet they failed on most fronts. I think the safest way for Google to make money would be to not innovate or create any off the wall projects, and then just return the money the money to shareholders through dividends or share buybacks. Ju…

>> Microsoft has the luxury of failure also, but when they tried to compete with Google they failed. Microsoft are in the same markets that Google makes a huge amount of money from and yet they failed on most fronts.

You figure, basic economics says that if the cost of failure is low, you should expect lots of failures. It's not the "luxury of always succeeding."

>> There are unknowns that could completely disrupt Google's business models for example what if all search became voice based (siri-like) with better AI. Or what if a competitor develops much better AI capabilities into their search.

Google has fended off serious competition before, and if a start-up came out with a better search idea, Google would acquire them.

Re: Google’s Greatest Strength May Be the Luxury of Failure

#28

Post by verbin217 »

apalmer wrote: post #20
michaelochurch wrote: post #2

Technological experiments often call for risk-seeking and adventure, but when it comes to things that affect other people, a more conservative and level-headed approach is necessary. For example, the utter recklessness involved in deploying calibration scores and shuttering 20% time is deplorable. That's an extreme lapse of professional responsibility. (Sorry if this irritating, but as a matter of principle, I must k…

Are you for real? I am trying to figure if you are a troll or whether you are truly psychologically damaged by your time at google? Dude google is not going to change or issue an apology because a former employee rags on them on the internet... you do realize this right?

I think it's fascinating. If you read his other comments he's obviously brilliant. That said, he seems to be somewhat detached from reality over his episode at Google. Not that perf isn't shitty just that he seems to think he alone can do anything about it. It's like the endearing megalomania of a child who honestly believes he'll grow up to single handedly end world hunger or cure cancer. You just hope that after he realizes his limitations he isn't so distraught that it keeps him from accomplishing what he's clearly capable of.

Re: Google’s Greatest Strength May Be the Luxury of Failure

#29

Post by agent00f »

verbin217 wrote: post #28
apalmer wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you for real? I am trying to figure if you are a troll or whether you are truly psychologically damaged by your time at google? Dude google is not going to change or issue an apology because a former employee rags on them on the internet... you do realize this right?

I think it's fascinating. If you read his other comments he's obviously brilliant. That said, he seems to be somewhat detached from reality over his episode at Google. Not that perf isn't shitty just that he seems to think he alone can do anything about it. It's like the endearing megalomania of a child who honestly believes he'll grow up to single handedly end world hunger or cure cancer. You just hope that after he…

Is the alternative implied here to acquiesce instead?

Re: Google’s Greatest Strength May Be the Luxury of Failure

#30

Post by [deleted] »

dragonwriter wrote: post #25
michaelochurch wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't Google just grow a pair and go to full-on open allocation? If people actually get together in conference rooms to conspire against their employees and wreck peoples' careers, as you've admitted they do, that's not only wrong but a sign that lots of time is being wasted.

> Why can't Google just grow a pair and go to full-on open allocation? From the description, calibration seems to address the issue of consistent assessment across the company. Open allocation, whatever else it might have going for it, doesn't seem to do that (and for open allocation to work effectively in a large organization, consistent assessment would seem to be, if not essential, highly desirable; even without h…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN