3 ms·

The thing is that as an outsider looking in, I see a lot of evidence that Google has this dichotomy and suffers from it. I mentioned some of it in my posts abov

The thing is that as an outsider looking in, I see a lot of evidence that Google has this dichotomy and suffers from it. I mentioned some of it in my posts above, but in general, a lot of the company's pain points from my perspective - and from the perspective of employees less satisfied with their experiences[1] - fit what we'd expect from such an enterprise. Here's an example of what I mean: Google is a company with incredible tech and quite a lot of money, but its products tend to fall into clear patterns. First, create something awesome, then fail to support it, then fail to monetize it, and eventually, it fall to the wayside and is discontinued. There are so many apps Google has created that fit this mold that people have done meta-analyses on how long the average Google product lasts.[2] Obviously, not all Google's products fit this mold - but I think Google is unique in being able to support this pattern, fiscally and from a development fatigue standpoint. This pattern is exactly what I would expect to find at a company that is mostly based around theory and concept, and that is either inexperienced at or disinterested in support work after the initial execution. [1] https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-disadvantages-of-working-at-Google https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-disadvantages-of-working-... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/mar/22/google-keep-services-closed https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/mar/22/google-ke... It's probably true that most people, even at Google, are somewhere in the mid-range. However, a large enough group of people with a small bias will result in a shift in the policy of an organization. I still think it's fair to say that, if my dichotomy exists, it would effect Google's institutional behavior even if the degree of difference between people is low on average. That is to say that while you may not see it, it also may not be obviously or even at all visible from the level of one person in one part of the organization, whereas its effects are visible from both within and without. It's kinda like dark matter - you don't know what's happening in someone's head, so you can't observe it directly, but you can predict outcomes based on hypotheses and see what comes true.

joshuamorton 10y ago
Interesting, when I read those answers, what I see is more or less people saying "management can sometimes be downright bad, and is often stupid". I very much doubt that many of the people (broadly) deciding which products to support and which to drop were hired via a new-grad-like interview process. For things like moonshots/other bets, the "build something awesome but don't monetize it" makes a lot of sense, since the entire point of that division seems to be "build something awesome and see if it is sustainable too". More often than not, unfortunately, the answer is no. In fact, if anything, I'd reverse the cause and effect in your idea. If we presuppose that there is this dichotomy in people and it affect google's motives and goals as a company, then this would influence the tech hiring practices to be the way they are, not vice versa.
- ivraatiems 10y ago
  > I very much doubt that many of the people (broadly) deciding which products to support and which to drop were hired via a new-grad-like interview process. I'm confused as to why you doubt that. Google's been around for almost 20 years. Their interviewing process has been around since at least 2003.[1] It's 100% possible that somebody was hired, ended up in higher management, and graduated to making driving decisions (at least over a particular area) in that time, unless your suggestion is that nobody who enters as a new grad ever stays long enough to get to that level, which at Google (vs other SV companies) seems unlikely. [1] http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/000616.html http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/000616.html > For things like moonshots/other bets, the "build something awesome but don't monetize it" makes a lot of sense, since the entire point of that division seems to be "build something awesome and see if it is sustainable too". More often than not, unfortunately, the answer is no. It does make sense, it's more the messaging around those kinds of projects that tends to get lost. You end up in situations where thousands or sometimes millions of users are relying on a "beta" product, which has no monetization strategy, and then gets scrapped. It's a pattern that's still unpleasant for end users and not great for Google's reputation. > If we presuppose that there is this dichotomy in people and it affect google's motives and goals as a company, then this would influence the tech hiring practices to be the way they are, not vice versa. That's a great point, and likely, assuming of course that Google started this way (I think it likely did, given its founders' backgrounds). It creates a self-perpetuating cycle, though, which still ends up being problematic.

joshuamorton 10y ago

Interesting, when I read those answers, what I see is more or less people saying "management can sometimes be downright bad, and is often stupid". I very much doubt that many of the people (broadly) deciding which products to support and which to drop were hired via a new-grad-like interview process. For things like moonshots/other bets, the "build something awesome but don't monetize it" makes a lot of sense, since the entire point of that division seems to be "build something awesome and see if it is sustainable too". More often than not, unfortunately, the answer is no. In fact, if anything, I'd reverse the cause and effect in your idea. If we presuppose that there is this dichotomy in people and it affect google's motives and goals as a company, then this would influence the tech hiring practices to be the way they are, not vice versa.

ivraatiems 10y ago
> I very much doubt that many of the people (broadly) deciding which products to support and which to drop were hired via a new-grad-like interview process. I'm confused as to why you doubt that. Google's been around for almost 20 years. Their interviewing process has been around since at least 2003.[1] It's 100% possible that somebody was hired, ended up in higher management, and graduated to making driving decisions (at least over a particular area) in that time, unless your suggestion is that nobody who enters as a new grad ever stays long enough to get to that level, which at Google (vs other SV companies) seems unlikely. [1] http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/000616.html http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/000616.html > For things like moonshots/other bets, the "build something awesome but don't monetize it" makes a lot of sense, since the entire point of that division seems to be "build something awesome and see if it is sustainable too". More often than not, unfortunately, the answer is no. It does make sense, it's more the messaging around those kinds of projects that tends to get lost. You end up in situations where thousands or sometimes millions of users are relying on a "beta" product, which has no monetization strategy, and then gets scrapped. It's a pattern that's still unpleasant for end users and not great for Google's reputation. > If we presuppose that there is this dichotomy in people and it affect google's motives and goals as a company, then this would influence the tech hiring practices to be the way they are, not vice versa. That's a great point, and likely, assuming of course that Google started this way (I think it likely did, given its founders' backgrounds). It creates a self-perpetuating cycle, though, which still ends up being problematic.