7 ms·

I think that the leaked emails show that one or two execs within Google expressed the optimistic case for the eventual revenue leading from the project. That's

I think that the leaked emails show that one or two execs within Google expressed the optimistic case for the eventual revenue leading from the project. That's how projects happen in companies. Some employee gets excited about the potential of the project and writes emails talking about all the huge numbers that project will post. Most of those emails are wrong. Maven may be wrong at any price or size. But Google's characterization of it as a minor project doesn't seem contradicted by these emails.

aunty_helen 8y ago
If it was only meant to be a $9 millon project, why take the risk? Google aren't that badly cash strapped.
- bb88 8y ago
  Because the military contracts are really lucrative. Many are worth billions on their face. Performing well on a 9 million dollar contract opens the door to larger contracts.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    Isn't this, in itself, a huge problem? Shouldn't public service be a low margin project? Could the fact that military contracts are so needlessly "lucrative" (despite the government having a literal monopoly on who you can sell advanced weaponry to) be why such a huge margin of your taxes go to defense?
    - mrep 8y ago
      Eh, government contracts come with all sorts of red tape that make that "lucrative" contract not so good once all the hidden costs are considered.
      - bb88 8y ago
        Yeah, there is red tape, but government contractors make this a core part of their business, so the relative risk is low. For a new company, the risk is relatively high, because there's a lot of up front work that has to be done (auditing, compliance, security, etc). But once that is ironed out, larger contracts become easier and easier. And then the only real risk is on a "firm fixed price" style of contract where the contractor assumes all the risk of product delivery. But many other are "time and materials" where the risk is shifted onto the government. If you fail to deliver a product, you're not on the hook because the government was paying for "time and materials" not the end product itself. So yes, google may actually lose money on a $9MM contract, but probably not on the next $100MM contract.
- bmelton 8y ago
  I don't know any of the details of Maven, but I've done a lot of federal work, and there are a few very good reasons to do insignificant projects, mainly based around past performance. In order to do any work for the government, you have to show that you have have done the work before to a satisfactory standard, and that you've done it for a type of agency similar to the one requesting proposals for the work. So, while a given project might be nearly worthless, you do it so that you can say that you did it, so that you're eligible to do it again in the future. The side, but still major benefit of this is that it excludes would-be competitors from getting that qualification, adding barriers to them for getting similar work like this in the future. Smaller companies, even companies that do exactly, or even only a given thing, often find it hard to get work doing their chosen thing because they don't have these past performances. To get their first qualified performance, they typically have to partner up with a larger company that has qualifications for work at the agency (think Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics, etc.), and do small bits of work as a sub-contractor for them until you have enough documented performance to do the work on your own. Whether or not these particular military contracts are worth much, it opens the door for a larger variety of contracts, which can be worth tens of billions per year.
  - citrablue 8y ago
    If the prior contract reputation is the primary concern, couldn't google get good reviews from the feds on altruistic projects? The less important the contract amount, the easier it should be to choose an altruistic project (they tend to pay less).
    - adamsea 8y ago
      Not for military contracts.
      - citrablue 8y ago
        The US military spends a huge amount of money on "kind" projects -- e.g., not bombs and planes. The USS Mercy[0] is a multi-generational series of ships that go to help natural disaster victims, all over the world. The entire military spends on vaccines, supplies, and all kinds of good things for many people. Even organizing philanthropic events would be an example of this. My larger point is that you wouldn't have to start working with them on drones unless you wanted to get in good with their drone funding teams, who appear, by and large, to be dedicated to killing people remotely. [my opinion there] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Mercy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Mercy
tmpz22 8y ago
And why are such emails so optimistic and positive? Because of the bonuses that they might lead to. For creating killing machines...
confounded 8y ago
Oh, military contracts always wrap up on time at the projected cost :)
- 086421357909764 8y ago
  Military, Federal, State govt. and even corporations all have dreaded over runs. It's bad all around.

aunty_helen 8y ago

If it was only meant to be a $9 millon project, why take the risk? Google aren't that badly cash strapped.

bb88 8y ago
Because the military contracts are really lucrative. Many are worth billions on their face. Performing well on a 9 million dollar contract opens the door to larger contracts.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  Isn't this, in itself, a huge problem? Shouldn't public service be a low margin project? Could the fact that military contracts are so needlessly "lucrative" (despite the government having a literal monopoly on who you can sell advanced weaponry to) be why such a huge margin of your taxes go to defense?
  - mrep 8y ago
    Eh, government contracts come with all sorts of red tape that make that "lucrative" contract not so good once all the hidden costs are considered.
    - bb88 8y ago
      Yeah, there is red tape, but government contractors make this a core part of their business, so the relative risk is low. For a new company, the risk is relatively high, because there's a lot of up front work that has to be done (auditing, compliance, security, etc). But once that is ironed out, larger contracts become easier and easier. And then the only real risk is on a "firm fixed price" style of contract where the contractor assumes all the risk of product delivery. But many other are "time and materials" where the risk is shifted onto the government. If you fail to deliver a product, you're not on the hook because the government was paying for "time and materials" not the end product itself. So yes, google may actually lose money on a $9MM contract, but probably not on the next $100MM contract.
bmelton 8y ago
I don't know any of the details of Maven, but I've done a lot of federal work, and there are a few very good reasons to do insignificant projects, mainly based around past performance. In order to do any work for the government, you have to show that you have have done the work before to a satisfactory standard, and that you've done it for a type of agency similar to the one requesting proposals for the work. So, while a given project might be nearly worthless, you do it so that you can say that you did it, so that you're eligible to do it again in the future. The side, but still major benefit of this is that it excludes would-be competitors from getting that qualification, adding barriers to them for getting similar work like this in the future. Smaller companies, even companies that do exactly, or even only a given thing, often find it hard to get work doing their chosen thing because they don't have these past performances. To get their first qualified performance, they typically have to partner up with a larger company that has qualifications for work at the agency (think Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics, etc.), and do small bits of work as a sub-contractor for them until you have enough documented performance to do the work on your own. Whether or not these particular military contracts are worth much, it opens the door for a larger variety of contracts, which can be worth tens of billions per year.
- citrablue 8y ago
  If the prior contract reputation is the primary concern, couldn't google get good reviews from the feds on altruistic projects? The less important the contract amount, the easier it should be to choose an altruistic project (they tend to pay less).
  - adamsea 8y ago
    Not for military contracts.
    - citrablue 8y ago
      The US military spends a huge amount of money on "kind" projects -- e.g., not bombs and planes. The USS Mercy[0] is a multi-generational series of ships that go to help natural disaster victims, all over the world. The entire military spends on vaccines, supplies, and all kinds of good things for many people. Even organizing philanthropic events would be an example of this. My larger point is that you wouldn't have to start working with them on drones unless you wanted to get in good with their drone funding teams, who appear, by and large, to be dedicated to killing people remotely. [my opinion there] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Mercy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Mercy

tmpz22 8y ago

And why are such emails so optimistic and positive? Because of the bonuses that they might lead to. For creating killing machines...

confounded 8y ago

Oh, military contracts always wrap up on time at the projected cost :)

086421357909764 8y ago
Military, Federal, State govt. and even corporations all have dreaded over runs. It's bad all around.