Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

Post by eviks » Fri, Nov 24, 2023, 12:06 PM UTC

gniv wrote: post #890

cat_plus_plus wrote: post #203

I think the post is spot on, but I don't agree with naming names especially when the other person doesn't get an opportunity to tell their side of the story. What if Ian's manager posted her own nasty missive criticizing him as an employee? Such things can damage someone's future career without any fair process to sort out the facts. I wouldn't at all be surprised that such manager exists and is not being held accoun…

It doesn't even matter whether the critique is true and fair. Naming names like this in public is potentially very damaging and should not be done.

Post by andromeduck » Fri, Nov 24, 2023, 12:18 PM UTC

surajrmal wrote: post #922

andromeduck wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because shuttering the business would be an existential threat while Google routinely shutters what would otherwise be successful business like domains/inbox/travel/reader/cloud print/code/podcasts, or otherwise refuses to treat with the level of seriousness/vision required to long term success like stadia/Chrome OS/Nest/plus/news etc.

The teams running products see it as an existential threat. Google shutting down the product is closer to an investor or board member forcing a startup to shut down because it's not long term sustainable. None of the things you mentioned could be run as independent businesses successfully, at least not at the levels of funding Google was giving them prior to them being shut down.

Post by trustyhank » Fri, Nov 24, 2023, 4:42 PM UTC

hot_gril wrote: post #65

paxys wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is it's not Sundar's job to be a visionary leader. That's not why the shareholders put him where he is. He is a bean counter and is doing a fantastic job bean counting and increasing Google's share price.

Google has passed up too many great opportunities that don't even take a visionary to see. Biggest examples, we let Zoom, OpenAI, and even Microsoft (Teams) steal our thunder. Microsoft, that company we make fun of as a dinosaur, moves faster than we do! I remember the discussions around the office right when ChatGPT came out. "Bard performs better," "we're more ethical," etc. Nope, they ate our lunch.

Post by Zambyte » Fri, Nov 24, 2023, 5:47 PM UTC

crashmat wrote: post #848

Zambyte wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But once you achieve market dominance "Market dominance" simply shouldn't be achievable under capitalism. We would be much better off as a society if the government started enforcing anti-trust laws again.

Thing is, under capitalism large companies get significant control over the governments' actions. And large companies don't like not being allowed to be as powerful as possible, holding monopolies.

Post by webmaven » Fri, Nov 24, 2023, 7:35 PM UTC

dclowd9901 wrote: post #750

pardoned_turkey wrote: post #86

Ian's post is pretty incisive, although I've read so many of these over the past 15 years or so. And the prescription is always to go back in time. I don't really think that's possible. When you're a newcomer, a disruptor, the whole point is to be different. You're bold, you have a clarity of purpose, you say things like "we're building a new kind of a company" or "the user comes first." But once you achieve market d…

Can we just say it? Business school graduates ruin innovation. They ruin principles. They ruin quality. Their goals are not aligned with the goals of creators and makers. Their goals are, chiefly, to make money. The worst thing you can do as a company looking to continue to burn with innovation is hire someone with a business degree. I don’t have any problem saying it.