6 ms·

I think (some of them) may think that's true, but their internal reward structures and top-down priorities are clearly set up such that it's not, in practice. T

by asark 7y ago

I think (some of them) may think that's true, but their internal reward structures and top-down priorities are clearly set up such that it's not, in practice. There's no other reason it could be so bad.

darrmit 7y ago
This seems to be common with the product teams I’ve interfaced with. Good intentions, but bad prioritization and little incentive to do anything other than cater to the big revenue drivers.
- jrockway 7y ago
  Why would you start a for-profit company to not focus on "big revenue drivers"?
  - newsoul2019 7y ago
    If you are a for-profit company, why would you kill off business lines that are "only" making you $10-$50 million per year?
    - TheHegemon 7y ago
      Most likely due to opportunity cost. Your resources and effort would be better spent elsewhere.
      - touristtam 7y ago
        Immediate profit and cost saving might hide something more valuable to a business in the long run: reputation.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
ericol 7y ago
I live in Argentina. Few years back, an ex government official from the previous government was caught in the act of hiding 8 million dollars in a church. My partner's auncle was also an ex government official from the previous government. He was in charge of the country's office for regulation work in rural areas. Up to that point, he was a complete believer that the government he was part of, was there to really change things and put the country in the right track. When the news about that other guy's 8 mill broke out, he was completelly and uterly devastated. I think the same can be applied to a lot of the people that works in Google regarding the way they perceive the company. I just recently read in the news that there has been some retaliation exherted on googlers because of organizing some walkouts. To think that your company just does good because you try to do good, and not take a look at what is really going around in the world related to what the company you work for is "a little" naive. Also, I think that right now companies like Google and FB should be treated and reasoned about like states. To think that they will not abuse their power in one way or the other - just like countries do - is also "a little" naive.
- mthoms 7y ago
  >Also, I think that right now companies like Google and FB should be treated and reasoned about like states. To think that they will not abuse their power in one way or the other - just like countries do - is also "a little" naive. That companies this big ought to be reasoned about just like Nation States is a very interesting idea.
  - arrosenberg 7y ago
    Alternatively, we could reject the notion entirely and revive the antitrust movement. Centralized private power is just as, if not more, dangerous than centralized public power and we aught to have a discussion about whether nation-state size companies are really a desirable feature.
    - ericol 7y ago
      I think both the approaches in your comment and the one above (Or any comment to that matter) are worthy of a lengthy discussion. But my point was more directed towrds understanding how companies this big are starting to behave. I do think antitrust is a way to look at it, but the anti trust laws in the US I think are difficult to point towards Google for instance (Probably the same about European laws) > we aught to have a discussion about whether nation-state size companies are really a desirable feature I think it goes a way longer than that. Obviously private companies are subjected to a lot less scrutiny than states, but states do miss behave and do not run into the risk of eternal intervention, unless they really fuck up, and even then.

by asark 7y ago

darrmit 7y ago

This seems to be common with the product teams I’ve interfaced with. Good intentions, but bad prioritization and little incentive to do anything other than cater to the big revenue drivers.

jrockway 7y ago
Why would you start a for-profit company to not focus on "big revenue drivers"?
- newsoul2019 7y ago
  If you are a for-profit company, why would you kill off business lines that are "only" making you $10-$50 million per year?
  - TheHegemon 7y ago
    Most likely due to opportunity cost. Your resources and effort would be better spent elsewhere.
    - touristtam 7y ago
      Immediate profit and cost saving might hide something more valuable to a business in the long run: reputation.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

ericol 7y ago

I live in Argentina. Few years back, an ex government official from the previous government was caught in the act of hiding 8 million dollars in a church. My partner's auncle was also an ex government official from the previous government. He was in charge of the country's office for regulation work in rural areas. Up to that point, he was a complete believer that the government he was part of, was there to really change things and put the country in the right track. When the news about that other guy's 8 mill broke out, he was completelly and uterly devastated. I think the same can be applied to a lot of the people that works in Google regarding the way they perceive the company. I just recently read in the news that there has been some retaliation exherted on googlers because of organizing some walkouts. To think that your company just does good because you try to do good, and not take a look at what is really going around in the world related to what the company you work for is "a little" naive. Also, I think that right now companies like Google and FB should be treated and reasoned about like states. To think that they will not abuse their power in one way or the other - just like countries do - is also "a little" naive.

mthoms 7y ago
>Also, I think that right now companies like Google and FB should be treated and reasoned about like states. To think that they will not abuse their power in one way or the other - just like countries do - is also "a little" naive. That companies this big ought to be reasoned about just like Nation States is a very interesting idea.
- arrosenberg 7y ago
  Alternatively, we could reject the notion entirely and revive the antitrust movement. Centralized private power is just as, if not more, dangerous than centralized public power and we aught to have a discussion about whether nation-state size companies are really a desirable feature.
  - ericol 7y ago
    I think both the approaches in your comment and the one above (Or any comment to that matter) are worthy of a lengthy discussion. But my point was more directed towrds understanding how companies this big are starting to behave. I do think antitrust is a way to look at it, but the anti trust laws in the US I think are difficult to point towards Google for instance (Probably the same about European laws) > we aught to have a discussion about whether nation-state size companies are really a desirable feature I think it goes a way longer than that. Obviously private companies are subjected to a lot less scrutiny than states, but states do miss behave and do not run into the risk of eternal intervention, unless they really fuck up, and even then.