271–280 of 348 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They flipped it at least as early as 15 years ago in 2004 with with gmail, their acquisition of google maps, and in 2006 with their acquisition of youtube. Actually I think you're basically right.
Android? Chrome?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm afraid having Google's robot butlers around all the time wouldn't do wonders for privacy either.
Better than an actual person though, at least for now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People said the same thing about Microsoft in the late 1990s - The Windows NT kernel was supposedly a thing of beauty, while Cairo was way ahead of its time. Problem is, computer science advances, so the type of programming that was state-of-the-art in the 1990s paled in comparison with what Google developed 10 years later. And the Google stack of 2003 is remarkably outdated by 2018 standards. As a Xoogler I use & va…
ok I'll bite: what are the exciting developments in blockchains that google is missing out on
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All corporations grow, decay and rot on the similar trajectories, so in this sense it's similar. I worked at MS at this time, and I think BigG now is like MS in 2003 roughly speaking. I'm waiting for miniggl to appear, then the circle will be complete. :)
What/Who is miniggl?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would not having a CTO symbolize Google's strategy shift from tech? Google has more than enough talented tech visionaries at high levels in each of its sub organizations, probably overpopulated with such. I don't think Google lacks tech direction, quite on the contrary, they still excel and way ahead of the crowds. But they don't have a strategy to make money off from those technologies, other than limited venues…
For example a CTO could say unilaterally "no, we won't help build the great search firewall for China".
That would be absurd, as such decision has no technical merit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve had that experience before as well. What always surprises me is how upper management overlooks the opportunity to pocket more money for themselves by cost-cutting the net negative employees. Too often the ones who do it go overboard and completely gut the company to death instead of just making it more effective and profitable. For example, a company with 5,000 employees might have about 500 positions that could…
> I suspect companies don’t do this more often They do, it‘s classic „rank and yank“, but perhaps slightly harder nowadays due to diversity and other such ideological concerns. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitality_curve
Google's seemingly endless new array of products with just as many being discontinued at any one time is an internet meme at this point. Often in threads when Google announced their latest hotness, potential customers are sarcastically guessing at how long until it is killed (some of those guesses ultimately turning out correct). I've never worked at Google, but it looks like shambles from the outside. Kind of remind…
If you take a step back, Google's launch & deprecate cycle for new products actually kind-of makes sense. Internally, Google is not so different from an ecosystem of VC-funded startups. They try a lot of things. Some ideas work and others don't. The alternative is to never ship new products out of fear of failure. Or, to indefinitely support everything, regardless of how tiny. Or, to wait so long to derisk a new prod…
One of these is unlike the other. The amount of money invested into the ultimately-failed G+ is mind-bogglingly immense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would not having a CTO symbolize Google's strategy shift from tech? Google has more than enough talented tech visionaries at high levels in each of its sub organizations, probably overpopulated with such. I don't think Google lacks tech direction, quite on the contrary, they still excel and way ahead of the crowds. But they don't have a strategy to make money off from those technologies, other than limited venues…
I'd say Google is showing signs of too many captains on the ship when it comes to tech. I'm not going to bore you with all the examples that are being cited elsewhere in this thread but there are plenty of things where people are raising eyebrows lately. A CTO's role is to provide clarity internally and externally on what a company is doing technically. In absence of a CTO, that role is for the CEO. Pichar is not eno…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They kicked off the deep learning trend when they bought deep mind I guess. Otherwise what innovation are you talking about? Switching from KNN to DL in machine translations is impressive as a technical achievement ... but not really an innovation, and I doubt all this "innovation" impacts their bottom line in any way.
Hardware innovation in the Pixel Camera also uses ML. "Night Sight" is the result of work across teams
Why now all the hate suddenly for company that is doing this since from start ?
Like Google CEO testify "we try our best" who could say Google is evil after this comment ?