5 ms·

Can post-2010 Google execute on anything "all the way" through? Is there some sort of institutional ADD?

csours 8y ago
Move fast and oooh shiny!
paxys 8y ago
This is what happens when you build two decades of company culture of rewarding employees for launching new products over boring old maintenance and iterative development.
- asark 8y ago
  I think part of it's because they almost exclusively hire people who will soon leave if they're told to do too much "boring" work and aren't allowed to half-ass it to get it done fast and move on to something more fun.
sswaner 8y ago
Can the Hacker News community ever forgive Google for shutting down Reader?
- WorldMaker 8y ago
  Has Google given the Hacker News community enough reasons to forgive them for shutting down Reader, yet?
rifung 8y ago
> Is there some sort of institutional ADD? I work at Google, opinions are my own. Obviously this is my personal take, but I don't think that's what it is. To me the issue is the performance/rewards system. Imagine you're someone high up and in charge of 10 projects, all asking for headcount/resources, while you have a limited amount to give. Presumably you're going to give more headcount/resources to the projects that are growing faster. If the differences in growth are substantial, maybe you'll decide to actually just let some projects die so their teams can be absorbed into the other projects with better prospects. Google's performance system is an attempt at being really objective, and it's hard to put a precise value on goodwill lost by discontinuing a product. Not only that, but the effects of discontinuing a product are felt company-wide as opposed to by an individual. Nobody is going to look up who decided to discontinue a product after all.
- user5994461 8y ago
  > Presumably you're going to give more headcount/resources to the projects that are growing faster. Absolutely not. Your presumptions are misplaced. Assigning resources to growth is usually the most stupid thing to do. By definition the projects that can grow the most are the projects with no customers or revenues, especially new projects that are nowhere, they can only grow. https://xkcd.com/1102/ https://xkcd.com/1102/ . Investing in these is to the detriment of established projects that actually bring revenues and keep the lights on, and companies that neglect to keep the lights on tend to die. Assign resources to the projects where they have the most impact. And business impact should be measured by return on investment (or loss if not invested), this could be almost anything in practice, growing revenues/customers, maintaining existing customers/revenues, not getting fines and lawsuits, reputation control, assets/inventory/cashflow optimizations to save money, etc...
  - rifung 8y ago
    > Assigning resources to growth is usually the most stupid thing to do. By definition the projects that can grow the most are the projects with no customers or revenues, especially new projects that are nowhere, they can only grow. https://xkcd.com/1102/ https://xkcd.com/1102/ . Investing in these is to the detriment of established projects that actually bring revenues and keep the lights on, and companies that neglect to keep the lights on tend to die. Well you can consider growth in terms of total users and not the percentage. > Assign resources to the projects where they have the most impact. And business impact should be measured by return on investment (or loss if not invested), this could be almost anything in practice, growing revenues/customers, maintaining existing customers/revenues, not getting fines and lawsuits, reputation control, assets/inventory/cashflow optimizations to save money, etc... We don't disagree. You are talking about what makes sense for a business while I am referring to what makes sense for an individual in an environment where growth is what determines your performance review. That is a bit simplified obviously since of course revenue does matter. My point is that it's exactly this misalignment of what's good for the company vs what's good for individuals working there that is the problem.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago

Move fast and oooh shiny!

This is what happens when you build two decades of company culture of rewarding employees for launching new products over boring old maintenance and iterative development.

asark 8y ago
I think part of it's because they almost exclusively hire people who will soon leave if they're told to do too much "boring" work and aren't allowed to half-ass it to get it done fast and move on to something more fun.

sswaner 8y ago

Can the Hacker News community ever forgive Google for shutting down Reader?

WorldMaker 8y ago
Has Google given the Hacker News community enough reasons to forgive them for shutting down Reader, yet?

rifung 8y ago

> Is there some sort of institutional ADD? I work at Google, opinions are my own. Obviously this is my personal take, but I don't think that's what it is. To me the issue is the performance/rewards system. Imagine you're someone high up and in charge of 10 projects, all asking for headcount/resources, while you have a limited amount to give. Presumably you're going to give more headcount/resources to the projects that are growing faster. If the differences in growth are substantial, maybe you'll decide to actually just let some projects die so their teams can be absorbed into the other projects with better prospects. Google's performance system is an attempt at being really objective, and it's hard to put a precise value on goodwill lost by discontinuing a product. Not only that, but the effects of discontinuing a product are felt company-wide as opposed to by an individual. Nobody is going to look up who decided to discontinue a product after all.

user5994461 8y ago
> Presumably you're going to give more headcount/resources to the projects that are growing faster. Absolutely not. Your presumptions are misplaced. Assigning resources to growth is usually the most stupid thing to do. By definition the projects that can grow the most are the projects with no customers or revenues, especially new projects that are nowhere, they can only grow. https://xkcd.com/1102/ https://xkcd.com/1102/ . Investing in these is to the detriment of established projects that actually bring revenues and keep the lights on, and companies that neglect to keep the lights on tend to die. Assign resources to the projects where they have the most impact. And business impact should be measured by return on investment (or loss if not invested), this could be almost anything in practice, growing revenues/customers, maintaining existing customers/revenues, not getting fines and lawsuits, reputation control, assets/inventory/cashflow optimizations to save money, etc...
- rifung 8y ago
  > Assigning resources to growth is usually the most stupid thing to do. By definition the projects that can grow the most are the projects with no customers or revenues, especially new projects that are nowhere, they can only grow. https://xkcd.com/1102/ https://xkcd.com/1102/ . Investing in these is to the detriment of established projects that actually bring revenues and keep the lights on, and companies that neglect to keep the lights on tend to die. Well you can consider growth in terms of total users and not the percentage. > Assign resources to the projects where they have the most impact. And business impact should be measured by return on investment (or loss if not invested), this could be almost anything in practice, growing revenues/customers, maintaining existing customers/revenues, not getting fines and lawsuits, reputation control, assets/inventory/cashflow optimizations to save money, etc... We don't disagree. You are talking about what makes sense for a business while I am referring to what makes sense for an individual in an environment where growth is what determines your performance review. That is a bit simplified obviously since of course revenue does matter. My point is that it's exactly this misalignment of what's good for the company vs what's good for individuals working there that is the problem.
ocdtrekkie 8y ago