5 ms·
Right, but look at google's recent history: more and more people, and in some way, less and less signal generated. This is some truly unavoidable thing I guess
by antirez 16y ago
Right, but look at google's recent history: more and more people, and in some way, less and less signal generated.
This is some truly unavoidable thing I guess, unless you do some radical stuff like splitting apart your company in different pieces, like anti trust itself would do?
Also for me is truly disturbing the idea of being able to select people that will do great stuff just using an interview. You can just check if they understand big O, can design things, and are actually able to code. This is already a result, but I bet this also creates a monoculture as this way you create a filter that is not just cool, but also bad in some way (IMHO this is why Google fails when trying to design stuff that are designed for the masses).
disclaimer: I got a request for interview from google two times and refused it, so I'm not frustrated about that or alike.
- moultano 16y agoGoogle's strategy for most of it's projects for the last few years has been to subtly improve them without anyone noticing. Typically a half-dozen changes a week to search alone: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/business/yourmoney/03google.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1275091204-u8xzwQUrZJ3zLsaPNSLzYA http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/business/yourmoney/03googl...
- tensor 16y agoI disagree on the less signal part of your comment. To me, it looks like more and more signal. Since search, we've seen maps, mail, reader, chrome, android, app engine, big table, google docs, wave, google voice, a google branded phone, google fibre to the home for those lucky enough, prediction api, charts, dns services, @font-face directory, google home page, and others many others. Sure, some of those have been buyouts. But overall that is a lot of signal as far as I'm concerned.
- dangrossman 16y agoSome? Only one or two things in that entire list originated at G.
- studer 16y agoReally? Just one or two things? Which ones?
- babycakes 16y ago[citation needed]
- xenomachina 16y agoFirst, why does it matter what "originated" there? Many of the projects that didn't originate at Google wouldn't have seen the light of day if Google or someone with comparative capital hadn't acquired them. And actually, it's a bit ironic that you make this complaint here given the subject of the article, since acquiring startups is a way to hire people who are both smart and get things done. "Originated" is also somewhat ambiguous. There are at least a couple of examples where Google was working on a project internally and saw a similar external project that they decided to acquire and merge with the internal project. Did the resulting project "originate" at Google? Even if you answer no, I think at least half of the items at that list still "originated" at Google.