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

Why Google Doesn’t Have a Research Lab

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 43 posts

Re: Why Google Doesn’t Have a Research Lab

#31

Post by dwc »

mathattack wrote: post #29

This is a big strategic question. Do you want researchers closer to the market, paid by the person whose P&L they could impact? Or further away, so they can think longer term? Other companies go through this a lot. Procter & Gamble used to have centralized research. To improve time to market, they decentralized research, and had them report to business unit heads. This was great for singles, but when they wanted more…

Xerox PARC was not dangerous. The danger for Xerox was the different between seeing an opportunity for the future or a threat to their current business model. If PARC had never existed, the same things with minor differences would have happened some years later.

Re: Why Google Doesn’t Have a Research Lab

#32

Post by gtirloni »

awalton wrote: post #8

Google doesn't need a designated "lab space" because Google is a laboratory. It might be different if Google were a chemical engineering company, but it's not. It's a software engineering company. Anywhere they've got computer scientists, whiteboards and computers is a lab. And that's basically every building at Google.

Additionally, it seems most Google employees are already trained in the arts of secrecy about their day jobs. No need for extra shielding for those working in R&D.

Re: Why Google Doesn’t Have a Research Lab

#33

Post by Retric »

dwc wrote: post #31
mathattack wrote: post #29

This is a big strategic question. Do you want researchers closer to the market, paid by the person whose P&L they could impact? Or further away, so they can think longer term? Other companies go through this a lot. Procter & Gamble used to have centralized research. To improve time to market, they decentralized research, and had them report to business unit heads. This was great for singles, but when they wanted more…

Xerox PARC was not dangerous. The danger for Xerox was the different between seeing an opportunity for the future or a threat to their current business model. If PARC had never existed, the same things with minor differences would have happened some years later.

The danger was not the invention it was wasting money without realizing the benefits.

Re: Why Google Doesn’t Have a Research Lab

#34

Post by psuter »

z3phyr wrote: post #18

Off topic: Can anyone list ongoing software based research projects, that are critically interesting, preferably in the sphere of compiler design, low level system software or high performance computing?

Hitting maybe all your targets: http://rosecompiler.org/

Re: Why Google Doesn’t Have a Research Lab

#35

Post by josefresco »

This is purely semantics: "Google’s research boss, Alfred Spector, has a small core team and no department or building to call his own."

So no department but he has a "small core team" and presumably Alred and his "small core team" have offices? This is such a non-story...just PR fluff to make Google appear unique and more "integrated".

Are we actually supposed to believe the "labs" at other tech giants are some sort of ivory tower that they never leave?

Re: Why Google Doesn’t Have a Research Lab

#36

Post by frobozz »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #14
hendzen wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A playground for extremely smart people they don't want their competitors to hire.

> A playground for extremely smart people Which is pretty much a definition of a good research lab.

I believe that the second clause in hendzen's reply is the point of the statement.

> ... they don't want their competitors to hire.

i.e. that the purpose is not to get them to do research for Google, but to stop them doing research or development for anyone else.

Re: Why Google Doesn’t Have a Research Lab

#37

Post by ForHackernews »

pavanky wrote: post #16
awalton wrote: post #8

Google doesn't need a designated "lab space" because Google is a laboratory. It might be different if Google were a chemical engineering company, but it's not. It's a software engineering company. Anywhere they've got computer scientists, whiteboards and computers is a lab. And that's basically every building at Google.

You can not say that is always true. Microsoft is a software engineering company as well, but they do have a dedicated R&D team and offices.

Microsoft also does a lot of hardware research and innovation: XBox Kinect, Surface, etc.

To some extent, hardware research requires more dedicated facilities than software research.

Re: Why Google Doesn’t Have a Research Lab

#38

Post by mathattack »

Retric wrote: post #33
dwc wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Xerox PARC was not dangerous. The danger for Xerox was the different between seeing an opportunity for the future or a threat to their current business model. If PARC had never existed, the same things with minor differences would have happened some years later.

The danger was not the invention it was wasting money without realizing the benefits.

Exactly. They invested in a future that other realized instead of them.

Would it have happened anyways? Who knows, probably.

Who was harmed? Their shareholders, and all the employees who eventually lost their jobs.

Re: Why Google Doesn’t Have a Research Lab

#39

Post by shas3 »

mathattack wrote: post #29

This is a big strategic question. Do you want researchers closer to the market, paid by the person whose P&L they could impact? Or further away, so they can think longer term? Other companies go through this a lot. Procter & Gamble used to have centralized research. To improve time to market, they decentralized research, and had them report to business unit heads. This was great for singles, but when they wanted more…

Centralized research labs give researchers the opportunity to look at different ideas across the company and connect ideas. This is almost impossible if all researchers are siloed in decentralized research groups.

Also, there's 'why can't we have both?'. In honesty, Google, like most tech companies today follows a hybrid model. The public statements of executives are not to be taken as gospel, because their primary audience are the company's shareholders. In reality, you have PhDs in Google X working on moon-shot problems (product focused or otherwise, they are long-term projects) as well as in direct P&L divisions. Centralized research labs also have their own versions of P&L metrics (e.g. number of papers published, product $s resulting indirectly from research, number of patents, etc.). Financially, centralized research labs working on moon-shot problems are a hedge against short term fluctuations and gives companies an opportunity to pursue long-term trends. Also, in companies that have both, there is nothing to prevent researchers from moving between centralized research labs and decentralized when opportunities present themselves (e.g. product commercialization/scale-up project resulting from research). I think it is dogmatic to pursue centralized or decentarlized exclusively.

Re: Why Google Doesn’t Have a Research Lab

#40

Post by awalton »

pavanky wrote: post #16
awalton wrote: post #8

Google doesn't need a designated "lab space" because Google is a laboratory. It might be different if Google were a chemical engineering company, but it's not. It's a software engineering company. Anywhere they've got computer scientists, whiteboards and computers is a lab. And that's basically every building at Google.

You can not say that is always true. Microsoft is a software engineering company as well, but they do have a dedicated R&D team and offices.

Who said it was always true? I certainly didn't. I made an assertion about Google, not Microsoft.
Post reply on HN