8 ms·

"One person who has spoken to Fuchsia staff described the effort simply: "It’s a senior-engineer retention project." This has been my therory for a while. You

by remir 8y ago

"One person who has spoken to Fuchsia staff described the effort simply: "It’s a senior-engineer retention project." This has been my therory for a while. You see all these different projects competing against each other (multiple messaging apps are a good example) and you think: why is Google so unfocused? But what Google basically wants to do is hoard engineers so they don't leave and go work for competitors and make them stronger (or start their own companies that could compete against Google). So Google's management figured out that if they give these enginners some cool stuff to work on, they'll stay at the company, even if the stuff they work on is a duplicate of something else the company has already done.

AFNobody 8y ago
Yup and if it turns out there are advantages to transition it into a real project.
refulgentis 8y ago
Different sources will have different spins. Surely the Fuchsia team wouldn't think they're in glorified daycare, it's unlikely their superiors would tell journalists they are.
kettlecorn 8y ago
I think Google's self-competition is something they are doing strategically. If you look at the industry as a whole products wax and wane based on market trends. Market leading products often struggle to innovate under the weight of their own success and are eventually replaced by a new innovator that's doing something right. Google, by virtue of creating many different types of products in one category somewhat insulates themselves from this effect. They have effectively infinite money, so from their perspective they can somewhat emulate the greater market internally. They can let "startup" style teams form internally so if someone supplants one of Google's products, it's likely to be a Google team. There are significant downsides to this (eroding consumer trust) which may take their toll on Google with time.
- dunpeal 8y ago
  Having multiple competing projects is not unheard of in the business world in general, and in high-achieving technology businesses in particular. Often, those outside the organization are only aware of the winning project, and the others are quietly discontinued, with many / most / all members moving to the winning team. I know of several other prominent examples, but can't mention by name because I'd be breaking an NDA. Also, Fuchsia is a successor, not a competing project, strictly speaking. It would be the "gauntlet" scenario if Google was running multiple ongoing projects all competing to "inherit" Android (which quite possible it does...)
  - tootie 8y ago
    I've heard that Intel used to do this. They would have separate teams working on next gen chips. Eventually they'd have a bake off and pick a winner and the rest would get written off as R&D. I'm guessing they at least pick up some learnings from the dead projects.
  - mchahn 8y ago
    This is often called the NASA approach since they've hired multiple companies to provide the same component many times. Then they use the best one.
- sjm-lbm 8y ago
  If we still look at the messaging example, I honestly think this theory (if that really is what Google is doing) is backfiring spectacularly - the fragmented messaging standards mean that most Android users communicate using SMS, which is a laughably bad protocol in 2018. iMessage - boring old non-developed by a "startup" style-team iMessage - is so much better that I've often contemplated switching to iOS for that reason only. The funny part is that they might be actually emulating an entire marketplace entirely within one company, but it often seems like it's a marketplace where a large entrenched lowest common denominator is the option that everyone uses and dislikes.
  - jedieaston 8y ago
dunpeal 8y ago
Per the article, Google has over 100 engineers working on Fuchsia. If these are all "senior engineers" that "Google is trying to retain", the cost of keeping them must be at least 50 million per year. That's a lot of money to pay just for retention of people who are not producing anything of value, consuming many other resources (office space, network, hardware, perks), and deeply committed to a project that supposedly will never benefit their employer. A rich employer may retain an unproductive employee for a limited amount of time if they expect it to ultimately pay off. It just doesn't make any sense to retain someone indefinitely if they're not going to produce anything of value, and (implicitly) will quit the moment you try to put them on any sort of real-world valuable work. Google is a public company with fiduciary responsibilities to its shareholders and a legally accountable board, it can't just throw tens of millions of dollars away without good reason or explanation. > You see all these different projects competing against each other (multiple messaging apps are a good example) and you think: why is Google so unfocused? There are many good reasons to have multiple teams competing against each other, building the same product. Often it will bring a strong drive and pace to all competing projects, as well as cross-pollination, and eventually they often merge to a single deliverable that is better than any of the projects could produce individually. > what Google basically wants to do is hoard engineers I'm not sure why all these improbable theories make more sense to you than the plain fact that Android was designed quite a few years ago, has many natural deficiencies, and - like all technologies - will eventually be replaced by a superior successor. That's exactly what Fuchsia is about. Its existence does not require any elaborate conspiracy theory. On the contrary: given how strategically important the Android market niche is for Google, it would be very surprising if Google was not working on a viable successor. It's as if Sony didn't have a successor for the PS4 in the pipeline, and just expected it to sell forever, with minor patches here and there.
- nnq 8y ago
  > It just doesn't make any sense to retain someone indefinitely if they're not going to produce anything of value They likely will. Whenever a new projects starts, engineers can be recruited for it from the pre-vetted internal pool. Hiring and the ramp-up time for new hires would cost more. Yeah, if you're an ossified compnay rarely starting new projects it doesn't make sense. But if your Google this is not the case...
sharcerer 8y ago
All major OS have gone kernel changes over time. Windows,MacOS,now Android. Simple. Of course, lots of other factors as well like Oracle lawsuit. Taken from reddit: I don't think it will be "starting over," just a major platform change. Imagine Fuchsia being Android 13.0. Every OS maker does a major platform rewrite along these lines eventually. Windows moved from DOS to the NT kernel. Apple moved from the classic Mac OS nanokernel (is this the right name?) to the Unix-like XNU kernel with OS X. Google could trade Linux for Fuchsia's kernel. These projects are always codenamed something else at first. They always come with big compatibility problems that are overcome with time or emulation layers. Sometimes there are major UI changes, sometimes the UI is built to closely replicate the old OS, but everyone does a huge "reboot" transition like this eventually.
debt 8y ago
"It’s a senior-engineer retention project." First time I've ever heard this phrase. It's funny because it's true.
ashleyn 8y ago
HP, Xerox, and AT&T figured that out decades ago.

by remir 8y ago

AFNobody 8y ago

Yup and if it turns out there are advantages to transition it into a real project.

refulgentis 8y ago

Different sources will have different spins. Surely the Fuchsia team wouldn't think they're in glorified daycare, it's unlikely their superiors would tell journalists they are.

kettlecorn 8y ago

I think Google's self-competition is something they are doing strategically. If you look at the industry as a whole products wax and wane based on market trends. Market leading products often struggle to innovate under the weight of their own success and are eventually replaced by a new innovator that's doing something right. Google, by virtue of creating many different types of products in one category somewhat insulates themselves from this effect. They have effectively infinite money, so from their perspective they can somewhat emulate the greater market internally. They can let "startup" style teams form internally so if someone supplants one of Google's products, it's likely to be a Google team. There are significant downsides to this (eroding consumer trust) which may take their toll on Google with time.

dunpeal 8y ago
Having multiple competing projects is not unheard of in the business world in general, and in high-achieving technology businesses in particular. Often, those outside the organization are only aware of the winning project, and the others are quietly discontinued, with many / most / all members moving to the winning team. I know of several other prominent examples, but can't mention by name because I'd be breaking an NDA. Also, Fuchsia is a successor, not a competing project, strictly speaking. It would be the "gauntlet" scenario if Google was running multiple ongoing projects all competing to "inherit" Android (which quite possible it does...)
- tootie 8y ago
  I've heard that Intel used to do this. They would have separate teams working on next gen chips. Eventually they'd have a bake off and pick a winner and the rest would get written off as R&D. I'm guessing they at least pick up some learnings from the dead projects.
- mchahn 8y ago
  This is often called the NASA approach since they've hired multiple companies to provide the same component many times. Then they use the best one.
sjm-lbm 8y ago
If we still look at the messaging example, I honestly think this theory (if that really is what Google is doing) is backfiring spectacularly - the fragmented messaging standards mean that most Android users communicate using SMS, which is a laughably bad protocol in 2018. iMessage - boring old non-developed by a "startup" style-team iMessage - is so much better that I've often contemplated switching to iOS for that reason only. The funny part is that they might be actually emulating an entire marketplace entirely within one company, but it often seems like it's a marketplace where a large entrenched lowest common denominator is the option that everyone uses and dislikes.
- jedieaston 8y ago

dunpeal 8y ago

Per the article, Google has over 100 engineers working on Fuchsia. If these are all "senior engineers" that "Google is trying to retain", the cost of keeping them must be at least 50 million per year. That's a lot of money to pay just for retention of people who are not producing anything of value, consuming many other resources (office space, network, hardware, perks), and deeply committed to a project that supposedly will never benefit their employer. A rich employer may retain an unproductive employee for a limited amount of time if they expect it to ultimately pay off. It just doesn't make any sense to retain someone indefinitely if they're not going to produce anything of value, and (implicitly) will quit the moment you try to put them on any sort of real-world valuable work. Google is a public company with fiduciary responsibilities to its shareholders and a legally accountable board, it can't just throw tens of millions of dollars away without good reason or explanation. > You see all these different projects competing against each other (multiple messaging apps are a good example) and you think: why is Google so unfocused? There are many good reasons to have multiple teams competing against each other, building the same product. Often it will bring a strong drive and pace to all competing projects, as well as cross-pollination, and eventually they often merge to a single deliverable that is better than any of the projects could produce individually. > what Google basically wants to do is hoard engineers I'm not sure why all these improbable theories make more sense to you than the plain fact that Android was designed quite a few years ago, has many natural deficiencies, and - like all technologies - will eventually be replaced by a superior successor. That's exactly what Fuchsia is about. Its existence does not require any elaborate conspiracy theory. On the contrary: given how strategically important the Android market niche is for Google, it would be very surprising if Google was not working on a viable successor. It's as if Sony didn't have a successor for the PS4 in the pipeline, and just expected it to sell forever, with minor patches here and there.

nnq 8y ago
> It just doesn't make any sense to retain someone indefinitely if they're not going to produce anything of value They likely will. Whenever a new projects starts, engineers can be recruited for it from the pre-vetted internal pool. Hiring and the ramp-up time for new hires would cost more. Yeah, if you're an ossified compnay rarely starting new projects it doesn't make sense. But if your Google this is not the case...

sharcerer 8y ago

All major OS have gone kernel changes over time. Windows,MacOS,now Android. Simple. Of course, lots of other factors as well like Oracle lawsuit. Taken from reddit: I don't think it will be "starting over," just a major platform change. Imagine Fuchsia being Android 13.0. Every OS maker does a major platform rewrite along these lines eventually. Windows moved from DOS to the NT kernel. Apple moved from the classic Mac OS nanokernel (is this the right name?) to the Unix-like XNU kernel with OS X. Google could trade Linux for Fuchsia's kernel. These projects are always codenamed something else at first. They always come with big compatibility problems that are overcome with time or emulation layers. Sometimes there are major UI changes, sometimes the UI is built to closely replicate the old OS, but everyone does a huge "reboot" transition like this eventually.

debt 8y ago

"It’s a senior-engineer retention project." First time I've ever heard this phrase. It's funny because it's true.

ashleyn 8y ago

HP, Xerox, and AT&T figured that out decades ago.