8 ms·
Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome
- amichail 16y agoI suspect risk taking is only encouraged outside their core business.
- nostrademons 16y agoInstant?
- amichail 16y agoThere's a risk that Instant won't enhance the search experience for most users significantly, but it won't make it worse. That's not much of a risk.
- borism 16y agothere's always risk, the question is - how do you measure risk/reward ratio.
- nostrademons 16y agoWhen Instant was under development, we had an office pool for "How long will it be before Instant is rolled back, and why?", and two of the most popular answers were "2 days - user revolt" and "1 month - global search outage". Of course, anyone who voted there has egg on their face now because it was a successful launch with relatively few problems, which is mostly a credit to the teams involved and the hard work they put in to foresee problems and fix them before launch. But things looked very, very different when the product was still iterating, the UI wasn't worked out, and there was significant doubt that it would be physically possible to do it. It's very easy to look at a product in hindsight and say "Duh, that's obvious, of course it's a good idea, why didn't anyone do it sooner?" It's much harder to take a random idea that's been batted around a few times and say definitively "This is a good idea that we can and must do."
- bmm6o 16y agoThere wasn't user revolt, but is Instant widely regarded as a success? I find it mildly annoying myself, but maybe I'm in the minority.
- nostrademons 16y agoBy public comments, help forum feedback, and press reaction, it was perhaps Google's most successful search launch ever, and certainly within the last year or two. I personally find it mildly annoying too, but I'm apparently in the minority.
- moultano 16y agoJust watching that process from a distance internally was a good lesson for me in product development. Normally I'd expect that if an idea is generally good, people will kinda like the first version, until after gradual iteration eventually they love it. For some things, that's just not true. With the iterations of Instant over months, I saw coworkers go from "argh I hate this I hope it never launches" to "wow, this is cool." They spent most of that time hating it, and only started to like it once it was near perfect. It wasn't a gradual switchover from "meh" to "awesome." It was a sudden shift from "HATE" to "WOW."
- davi 16y agoThis is really interesting: certain kinds of features and projects suck until they're good. A steeply sloped sigmoid of suckage. Why did the people working on Instant persevere despite their coworkers' reactions? Was it because they had a clear end-vision of awesomeness, and they knew they just hadn't implemented to that point yet? Or was it more intuitive, a sense that there was awesomeness somewhere in parameter space, and that they could get there with continued iteration?
- nostrademons 16y agoIt's actually more interesting than that: several of the key people working on the project believed it was impossible and could never succeed. The short answer to your question is "because Larry and Sergey really wanted it". It's amazing how much attention projects that the founders are personally interested in get. That would be very misleading, though, because it's not like anyone was forced to work on Instant, nor is the typical Googler a mindless automaton who always does what he's told. Everyone who worked on Instant was there because they wanted to work on Instant, even the ones who felt it didn't have a prayer of success. The longer answer is that Google's created a culture that tolerates ambiguity remarkably well. Y'know how they say that it's a sign of intelligence (and insanity) to be able to hold multiple conflicting ideas in your head at once? That's the same drive that lets people say "I think this is a terrible idea, and it'll never succeed...but it's interesting, and it deserves an honest chance, so let me help you with that." Strong opinions lightly held. This starts with the hiring process, I think, which tends to select for people who can appreciate nuance and tend to explore lots of technologies outside those that are immediately useful to them (contrary to popular opinion, Google does not solely care about GPA and alma mater when hiring). Then new recruits get to the Googleplex, and they're immersed in a culture that's just awash in ideas, most of which are terrible, and all of which are listened to. When you see that your coworker's reaction to the brain-dead idea that was just spouted forth is "Hmm. That's interesting - what could you do to test that and develop it?" instead of "That's stupid and it'll never work", you start to reevaluate your snap judgments. And of course, if you work there for any length of time, you'll see a number of those stupid ideas actually launch and become giant successes with millions of users. I remember clearly telling my coworker, about Instant, "I think it's a terrible idea and will fail miserably, but I am really, really glad that I work in a company where we can place these sorts of bets." I wish more places had a culture like this. FaceBook, I've heard, has it. So do many prominent investors in Silicon Valley, and I wonder if that's where Google got it. Top-flight research labs and universities do too. But it's sorely lacking in the general public, and on Reddit, and among our politicians & government, and in many big corporations. It, unfortunately, is not the sort of thing you can pick up from a book or a few blog or forum posts. You really have to be immersed in the culture to absorb it, and even then, your natural inclination is going to say "This is stupid" to most new ideas. It seems to take a lot of mental effort to suspend that judgment and say "Well, this sure looks stupid, but I'll stick with it a little longer and see where it ends up." I've found, though, that that culture is perhaps the most valuable thing that I've gotten out of my time at Google.
- smokinn 16y agoAlso, that preview window thing you get when you click in the description text. Personally, it annoys the hell out of me because I'm a compulsive clicker and I really wish there was some way to turn it off permanently but it's definitely another example of a change made to core search.
- numbchuckskills 16y agoI use this to hide the magnifying glass: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/90222 http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/90222
- bigbang 16y agoBing had search result preview window much before Google.
- smokinn 16y agoThe gp's post was about risk, not innovation. The path Google is going down now (adding more features and bloat into their results) is risky because a lot of the population likes how simple and easy to use Google is. The more features they add, the more confusing it gets and if someone comes along with a much simpler interface and a new idea that gives better results they're in trouble. Bing innovating on features is good for Bing because it differentiates them. Google copying those features is risky because it diverges from the simplicity they're famous for and makes them look like they're playing catch-up.
- code_duck 16y agoSure, but in that case it's worth pointing out that Google had Google before MS changed their search engine to be as similar to Google's as possible.
- crowsfan85 16y agoYeah, me too. Hate those popups. To remove: (1) download Stylish add-on for chrome or firefox, (2) add CSS style below #vspb, button.ws, button.vspib { display: none !important } .vspi { background: none !important; border: none !important }
- anthuswilliams 16y agoWith what justification? Google has made numerous innovations in terms of search. Think Instant, Goggles, and their shiny new (painfully unusable) implementation of Image Search. Plus they've got a bunch of micro-innovations--the AROUND operator, for example, and the reading level filters.
- amichail 16y agoBTW, when is Google going to allow third party developers to enhance its core search results via a search API? Such an API would allow third party developers to add Wolfram Alpha like features among other things right into the core Google search.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- nostrademons 16y agoI think they used to do this - I could swear that I used to have a third-party plugin that I "installed" on my Google account that would show me JavaDocs whenever I Googled a Java class name. It hasn't shown up in about 3 years, though, and I haven't found any trace of it in the code I work with (which should be right around that area of the page...), so maybe it was discontinued.
- amichail 16y agoWas there any third party computation/ui? Such a feature would fit nicely with the app engine to provide third party computation/ui to enhance the core search results. User feedback would determine which third party code is run by default for various queries/contexts. Third party developers would make more money when their code is executed more often.
- nostrademons 16y agoYeah, it was totally third-party, and labeled as such. I have no idea how the technology behind it worked - I was just a user, not a developer.
- amichail 16y agoIt should not require you to subscribe. User feedback (possibly implicit) should be used to determine what third party code is used for which queries/contexts by default.
- gfunk911 16y agoGreat article. Choosing a place where people appreciate honest criticism works for friendships as well. My biggest criteria for friends is that the person is cool with honesty, including telling them when they're wrong. Interesting point about how if you never fail, you're too conservative. The same idea applies to poker. Microsoft fails constantly and people accept it, yet every Google failure means they've lost their mojo. No Wave and no Buzz means no GMail.
- sriramk 16y agoMicrosoft fails constantly and people accept it? :) I would argue the exact opposite - Microsoft succeeds consistently in a lot of very measurable ways but isn't given enough credit for it (that a Google/Apple would get for doing the very same thing).
- aristus 16y agoNot to stir the pot, Paul, but was google the only place where your criticisms were welcomed? What about Facebook?
- zackattack 16y agoycombinator?
- paul 16y agoY Combinator and FriendFeed don't count, naturally. Somehow, they don't go in the "job" category the same way other jobs do.
- Fjslfj 16y agoThis implicitly means Facebook does count. You don't have to answer this one. In light of YC's recent tie-up with Facebook, it's good to see that there might very well be a voice of caution within the organization.
- jackowayed 16y agoNote that he said "Google was the only one where me speaking my mind never seemed to cause a problem." So he's not necessarily implying that all criticism is wholly rejected at Facebook, just that his criticism sometimes caused problems.
- kia 16y agoHe is talking about Google-size companies.
- wizardishungry 16y agoChrome is a risk? I'd say Chrome is a hedge against risk - allowing Apple, MS, Mozilla, etc. to dictate the terms of browser innovation.
- angelbob 16y agoDeveloping Chrome is a risk. It's only a hedge against risk if it works. It's a little like if you could buy insurance, but there'd be a 25% chance that you paid for it and it just didn't do anything. The insurance is a hedge against risk, but buying it is (another) risk.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- mattmanser 16y agoI think equating Wave to a 'big' risk is a bit much, financially there was no risk. All they lost was face. Also Chrome and Android are not successes, Google Adwords is a success, MS Office is a success, MS Windows is a success. The key ingredient to a success for a company is some MONEY. Anything else is just showing off. I'm still very disappointed with the follow through on Wave and Buzz, a bit of PR and a few man years of engineering is pretty minor compared to the profit they make. The 'oh well, it didn't work, we're giving up' attitude Google has been displaying recently is pretty disconcerting. We may all hate MS, but at least they tend to follow through with some serious chops when the going gets tough (I'm thinking Silverlight rather than Danger). I'm actually getting a little worried about Google's follow through on certain projects, as an external company I wouldn't be putting any investment in any of their new products given their recent track record. I'm also not keen on Google 'competing' in the 'oh, we'll make money through search advertising' way they're doing recently. It's stifling innovation in certain markets imo. Actually, rereading my post, I really don't agree with Paul very much. On the other hand, I still think they're great, if a worrying monopoly. It could be worse though, Google could be run by Zynga.
- jdp23 16y agoI was really surprised to see the parent voted down. I thought it made some interesting points quite articulately and added to the conversation not matter whether or not you agree.
- paul 16y agoChrome and Android are both a huge success. Google takes a long-term view which doesn't require every product to immediately pay for itself, which is very smart. The long term value of owning these platforms is immense. Also, your notion that "Wave was not a risk" is similarly mistaken. The opportunity cost of having a large team of smart people working for several years is enormous.
- ohashi 16y agoDo you think such a long term view is allowed because of the legacy of figuring out search engine advertising?
- danest 16y agoIn retrospect Google is the new type of Einstein and Tesla and it is very exciting to be living right now with all their new pushes in inovation. Paul, would you mind sharing the title of the new google book?
- paul 16y agoI've probably already said too much about the book ;)
- babeKnuth 16y agoYou're kidding me with the analogies. Seriously? "Google" is not a person/individual. I'd definitely place _why, brad fitzpatrick, and zed shaw as POSSIBLE equals to einstein and tesla, but that would still be a stretch...
- jimbokun 16y ago""Google" is not a person/individual." Neither was "Edison".
- raleec 16y agoThomas Edison? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Edison http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Edison
- jimbokun 16y agoFrom that article: "Edison was legally attributed with most of the inventions produced there, though many employees carried out research and development under his direction. His staff was generally told to carry out his directions in conducting research, and he drove them hard to produce results." So, when you read "Edison invented such and such", it really means that the people working under him invented such and such. So, it really is similar to the way "Google" is inventing lots of interesting things. The difference is Larry and Sergey refrain from claiming that they personally invented everything that comes out of Google.
- sz 16y ago#3 is my favorite thing about Google. On some level it makes me feel better about handing over personal data when the company doesn't act asshole-ish.
- andreyf 16y agoOn some level it makes me feel better about handing over personal data when the company doesn't act asshole-ish. As well meaning as all of the employees at Google are, and as far as they'll go to do the right thing (far, in my experience), from what I understand of our legal system, it's really the role of government to protect you from corporations mis-purposing your data. The free market isn't meant to be a democratic institution, and while some top executives have a certain talent for aligning stockholders interests with those of their users, the system they operate within simply isn't designed with democratic responsibility in mind.
- jrockway 16y agoThe thing about taking risks is spot-on. I noticed that where I work, every project is treated as though failure would mean death to the company; there is no agility or experimentation, and projects that should die because they suck last forever because failure is absolutely not an option. If we said, "hey, let's try this out" once in a while, we would have a lot better technology.
- spenrose 16y agoHhmm. You didn't actually mention my first reason (though #3 is sort of related): Google creates more value than it captures. Remember the Web in '98? Remember domain name bidding wars, because typing "www.shopping.com" into the address bar was actually a plausible strategy for attempting to buy something online, because search basically didn't work? Google made search work, which made the Internet work, which changed millions of lives and created many more billions in value than they have ever booked as revenue. Wave was an attempt to fix the way hundreds of millions of people work. They are trying to substantially improve the way we get around the planet. Succeed or fail, Google persistently tries to make the world a better place. How many companies can say that?
- 3pt14159 16y agoI've always been the "tell the truth because it is truth" type and I wish my startup had an advisor like Paul. It would be an invaluable asset to any startup that really cared about making it. I can see why YC was able to attract him.
- ryanwaggoner 16y agoShouldn't this be titled "Reasons Google is still awesome"?
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- known 16y agoOne word: Intrapreneurship
- babeKnuth 16y agoSix words: absorb other startups into your company
- speleding 16y agoIMHO the main reason Google will remain a force to be reckoned with is that they have 10000 driven and highly skilled individuals on board with the right experience. That trumps all arguments the article provides.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- antirez 16y agoWhat I think Google could hugely benefit from, is stop hiring too much PHD & engineering-type people. I think they have a cultural problem that has the effect of many consumer products they develop (where the technology is not the only important ingredient) to don't work: you can't rule the "social" world from the nerd-point-of-view, seriously. Get creative/artistic people into the mix, and Google could turn into some magical stuff again.
- mike-cardwell 16y agoEngineers are creative and artistic people.
- antirez 16y agoNo... engineers, like any other subset of people selected by profession, are a mix of creative/artistic and non creative/artistic people. And if you hire doing a huge selection pressure based on PHDs, ability to reply to strictly logical problems, and so forth, you are mounting a selective pressure that will get you with an environment where there are high logical skills but possibly deficiencies in other fields.
- babeKnuth 16y agoAll engineers? Are you sure about that?