3 ms·

> this builds much more explicit resentment from those that are profit-centers towards those that are cost-centers An additional bit of trouble, coming from th

by mjn 11y ago

> this builds much more explicit resentment from those that are profit-centers towards those that are cost-centers An additional bit of trouble, coming from the way Google's current profits are made, is that the profit centers are mainly perceived as less glamorous than the cost centers, which seems likely to only add to the resentment. It becomes much more explicit then, that the people doing the various bits of gruntwork needed to keep AdSense working (hugely profitable, but full of jobs like "sales" and "click-fraud arms race") are funding the people getting on the news for drones (not profitable, but cool). Not impossible to manage, and I'm sure they've thought about it, but does seem challenging.

jusben1369 11y ago
To be clear I think all of that resentment is already in place and this is an attempt to bring it into the light and better manage it. I remember hearing Amazon folks thought AWS had nothing to do with Amazon and was a huge capital suck and they hated it. Now of course it's probably 30 - 50% of their valuation. Thats one way to get the "core product" folks to warm up to experimentation.
bcantrill 11y ago
That was definitely true at Sun as well. At one point, Arthur van Hoff told me with a straight face that "every E10K Sun sold was because of Java." This was in early 1998 -- and it was categorically (and demonstrably!) false. We at Sun who had the filthy task of actually making money were looked down upon by those who were responsible for spending it -- and represented one of the ultimate failures of the planet model, in my opinion.
- Retra 11y ago
  I can't see why anyone would object to that kind of arrangement. The whole reason we do the boring stuff is because it pays for the exciting stuff. If exciting stuff could pay for itself, nobody would ever do anything dull.
  - rodgerd 11y ago
    If the dull stuff compensated for the lack of prestige with cash (for example), that might be true. But in reality, the low prestige tends to go with low pay, low promotion opportunities, and low recognition.
    - LoSboccacc 11y ago
      and that's why you need open allocation in a huge company. keeps everyone honest and allows economy of work to balance effort and pay. if you don't balance people not wanting to do the low grunt work, you'll only get inexperienced or low rank employers to do it which is extremely hurtful in the medium run (say not in a year, but you'll definitely notice within a decade)
AJ007 11y ago
Some things I've been thinking about a) Is this about firewalling disappointments and legal problems from Google's core business from the new things that will drive it for the next 20 years? b) Will they spin out Google's Europe operations in to a separate company so EU regulatory actions have minimal impact on the rest of thier business? c) Are there other changes they are worried about to the ad business? Proposals to change the tax status of advertising deductions (US) would hit their bottom line hard, even if it if their ad auctions algorithms continue to behave as shill bids. Will be interesting to see how this changes the main Google business, for better or worse.

by mjn 11y ago

jusben1369 11y ago

To be clear I think all of that resentment is already in place and this is an attempt to bring it into the light and better manage it. I remember hearing Amazon folks thought AWS had nothing to do with Amazon and was a huge capital suck and they hated it. Now of course it's probably 30 - 50% of their valuation. Thats one way to get the "core product" folks to warm up to experimentation.

bcantrill 11y ago

That was definitely true at Sun as well. At one point, Arthur van Hoff told me with a straight face that "every E10K Sun sold was because of Java." This was in early 1998 -- and it was categorically (and demonstrably!) false. We at Sun who had the filthy task of actually making money were looked down upon by those who were responsible for spending it -- and represented one of the ultimate failures of the planet model, in my opinion.

Retra 11y ago
I can't see why anyone would object to that kind of arrangement. The whole reason we do the boring stuff is because it pays for the exciting stuff. If exciting stuff could pay for itself, nobody would ever do anything dull.
- rodgerd 11y ago
  If the dull stuff compensated for the lack of prestige with cash (for example), that might be true. But in reality, the low prestige tends to go with low pay, low promotion opportunities, and low recognition.
  - LoSboccacc 11y ago
    and that's why you need open allocation in a huge company. keeps everyone honest and allows economy of work to balance effort and pay. if you don't balance people not wanting to do the low grunt work, you'll only get inexperienced or low rank employers to do it which is extremely hurtful in the medium run (say not in a year, but you'll definitely notice within a decade)

AJ007 11y ago

Some things I've been thinking about a) Is this about firewalling disappointments and legal problems from Google's core business from the new things that will drive it for the next 20 years? b) Will they spin out Google's Europe operations in to a separate company so EU regulatory actions have minimal impact on the rest of thier business? c) Are there other changes they are worried about to the ad business? Proposals to change the tax status of advertising deductions (US) would hit their bottom line hard, even if it if their ad auctions algorithms continue to behave as shill bids. Will be interesting to see how this changes the main Google business, for better or worse.