7 ms·

The brilliant engineers argument is pretty blind to the way these corporations might not make the most potential of some people. I know brilliant person which m

The brilliant engineers argument is pretty blind to the way these corporations might not make the most potential of some people. I know brilliant person which moved to work for Google because of the pay, and he was spending time there doing mundane testing. It's pretty known issue that Google easily hires brilliant people, it becomes so crowded they don't really use their potential. At least Google is desperately trying to diversify away from ads only. Facebook doesn't. And Facebook has even bigger problem: their ads are a distraction, and younger people are getting more and more adapt at subconsciously ignoring this distraction. I've seen young kids automatically reaching for the the skip ad button in YouTube. I would argue that in 10 to 20 years, most of humanity will be immune to forced advertisements.

nojito 6y ago
Hiring the smartest people to do the "simplest" tasks is how you reduce errors and variance.
- fennecfoxen 6y ago
  At some point there's a problem of comparative advantage. You could hire a top tier genius computer programmer to check out groceries at the supermarket, and he could become the best supermarket checkout clerk in the world — but it's more efficient for him to be programming computers and leaving the grocery job to someone else, who isn't even particularly good at it, just as an entry level job. Google's simplest tasks may be more important than many other companies' complex tasks, but in the long term, wasting capital (including human capital) by using it at a fraction of its potential is generally a losing game, for society and for the capitalist.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    Google has certainly moved the needle on things like SRE--both for themselves and for the industry as a whole--because they can and do hire much of what their interview process determines is the "best" into roles that many other companies will staff with more or less whatever resume comes along. That said, it really hasn't helped Google much to expand their business. GSuite is probably the clearest mostly organic new area--and it's pretty good. Google Cloud somewhat although, like Java for Sun, Kubernetes will probably end up making other companies a lot more money than it will for Google. Hence the current spat over Istio. Certainly lots of things haven't gone anywhere. Anyone want to lay long odds on Waymo being around in 10 years? And it's probably not healthy for the tech industry. Yes, some will go for the startup lottery ticket for reasons of passion or naivete. And others are just less driven by money. But having many of the notionally best and brightest spending years at Google mostly because they'll pay such large wads of cash to even fresh grads means a lot of companies won't even try to compete for them.
- quicklime 6y ago
  Yep, try working in a company that hires incompetent people to do mundane testing. The results are not good. Maybe it's just that Google understands the value of testing in a way that the other companies don't.
- dreamcompiler 6y ago
  It's also how you keep the smart people from competing against you. See Microsoft Research in the 90s.
- taneq 6y ago
  Also increase turnover. Hiring smart, interesting people to do boring jobs just wastes everyone's time.
- im3w1l 6y ago
  If you are too smart for some task then you will get bored and zone out and start making silly mistakes.
scarface74 6y ago
Google has been desperately trying to diversify from advertising for at least 15 years.
- jjoonathan 6y ago
  And they'd have landed a few hits by now if their internal incentive structure didn't prohibit follow-through. Have they fixed that yet?
  - x0x0 6y ago
    given the 6m disclosed G Suite customers, they only need an average revenue of $167/u/y ($13.9/u/m) to have a billion dollar business. Given their pricing structure, I'd guess they are most likely close or past that run rate.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      Google made $162 billion last year. GSuite would be a little over 0.5% of their revenue if that were the case. How much of that would translate to profit? I would think though GSuite/Chromebooks would be a success story because of the education market.
      - x0x0 6y ago
        I have no idea how much profits G Suite make (or don't). Nonetheless, billion dollar opportunities don't grow on trees. They have tons of neighboring area to grow into -- ADFS, directory, IdP, etc.
        scarface74 6y ago
        $1 billion dollar revenue opportunities are child’s play for large tech companies. The profit margins are what matter.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  Bingo. As a GSUITE admin, they are still far behind competing on the business front, and too many of their enterprise solutions are very google-specific, so few CTOs are willing to commit to them. On the investment front, we had equity positions in Google for a while, but these days I see a lot more upside in Microsoft equity positions than Google.
taneq 6y ago
> I've seen young kids automatically reaching for the the skip ad button in YouTube. Does anyone not? Anyone who doesn't run uBlock Origin, I mean. Hell, by the early 2000s I automatically tuned out anything banner-shaped to the point where it sometimes took a while to notice menus if they looked too much like a banner.
- mattmcknight 6y ago
  I cancelled cable and paid for YouTube Premium when it became evident that my kids were spending more time there than watching the TV. I try to do my bit to pay for stuff I like if I can get it without ads. What really annoys me is stuff I pay for that still has ads.
  - Tempest1981 6y ago
    Do they all share 1 account? Or is there a family plan?
    - jonny_eh 6y ago
      There are family plans.
- manquer 6y ago
  The difference is back in 2000s the technically savvy demographic did not have the purchasing power to make a difference , i.e. people who had money to buy things clicked on ads. Things have already changed that is partly why making ads to get easy revenue is harder, in another 20 years there will not be a pre-internet generation who can be dependent on to click ads. However ads are not going away, for example although I pay for YT premium and run ublock origin, there are plenty of ads within the video itself . if you have browsed education videos on YT you will know brands like CuriosityStream, nebula, nordVPN, brilliant, skillshare. etc. Similar and far worse practices happen in other mediums, with influencers on instagram and sponsored posts masquerading as neutral content etc. It is becoming lot harder to filter it out, lesser and lesser ads are effective we will see more of this .
- 6y ago
zeroonetwothree 6y ago
Having worked there the whole brilliant thing greatly overstated. Lots of mediocre engineers.
earthboundkid 6y ago
The skip ad button is designed to be pressed. It proves to Google that you’re still watching. Indeed you’re watching intently at the countdown clock. The ads front load all the content so they don’t need you to see the second half.
shostack 6y ago
I'm not sure how anyone could look at what Facebook has and continues to do in the AR/VR space and claim they aren't trying to diversify.

nojito 6y ago

Hiring the smartest people to do the "simplest" tasks is how you reduce errors and variance.

fennecfoxen 6y ago
At some point there's a problem of comparative advantage. You could hire a top tier genius computer programmer to check out groceries at the supermarket, and he could become the best supermarket checkout clerk in the world — but it's more efficient for him to be programming computers and leaving the grocery job to someone else, who isn't even particularly good at it, just as an entry level job. Google's simplest tasks may be more important than many other companies' complex tasks, but in the long term, wasting capital (including human capital) by using it at a fraction of its potential is generally a losing game, for society and for the capitalist.
- ghaff 6y ago
  Google has certainly moved the needle on things like SRE--both for themselves and for the industry as a whole--because they can and do hire much of what their interview process determines is the "best" into roles that many other companies will staff with more or less whatever resume comes along. That said, it really hasn't helped Google much to expand their business. GSuite is probably the clearest mostly organic new area--and it's pretty good. Google Cloud somewhat although, like Java for Sun, Kubernetes will probably end up making other companies a lot more money than it will for Google. Hence the current spat over Istio. Certainly lots of things haven't gone anywhere. Anyone want to lay long odds on Waymo being around in 10 years? And it's probably not healthy for the tech industry. Yes, some will go for the startup lottery ticket for reasons of passion or naivete. And others are just less driven by money. But having many of the notionally best and brightest spending years at Google mostly because they'll pay such large wads of cash to even fresh grads means a lot of companies won't even try to compete for them.
quicklime 6y ago
Yep, try working in a company that hires incompetent people to do mundane testing. The results are not good. Maybe it's just that Google understands the value of testing in a way that the other companies don't.
dreamcompiler 6y ago
It's also how you keep the smart people from competing against you. See Microsoft Research in the 90s.
taneq 6y ago
Also increase turnover. Hiring smart, interesting people to do boring jobs just wastes everyone's time.
im3w1l 6y ago
If you are too smart for some task then you will get bored and zone out and start making silly mistakes.

scarface74 6y ago

Google has been desperately trying to diversify from advertising for at least 15 years.

jjoonathan 6y ago
And they'd have landed a few hits by now if their internal incentive structure didn't prohibit follow-through. Have they fixed that yet?
- x0x0 6y ago
  given the 6m disclosed G Suite customers, they only need an average revenue of $167/u/y ($13.9/u/m) to have a billion dollar business. Given their pricing structure, I'd guess they are most likely close or past that run rate.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Google made $162 billion last year. GSuite would be a little over 0.5% of their revenue if that were the case. How much of that would translate to profit? I would think though GSuite/Chromebooks would be a success story because of the education market.
    - x0x0 6y ago
      I have no idea how much profits G Suite make (or don't). Nonetheless, billion dollar opportunities don't grow on trees. They have tons of neighboring area to grow into -- ADFS, directory, IdP, etc.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        $1 billion dollar revenue opportunities are child’s play for large tech companies. The profit margins are what matter.
koheripbal 6y ago
Bingo. As a GSUITE admin, they are still far behind competing on the business front, and too many of their enterprise solutions are very google-specific, so few CTOs are willing to commit to them. On the investment front, we had equity positions in Google for a while, but these days I see a lot more upside in Microsoft equity positions than Google.

taneq 6y ago

> I've seen young kids automatically reaching for the the skip ad button in YouTube. Does anyone not? Anyone who doesn't run uBlock Origin, I mean. Hell, by the early 2000s I automatically tuned out anything banner-shaped to the point where it sometimes took a while to notice menus if they looked too much like a banner.

mattmcknight 6y ago
I cancelled cable and paid for YouTube Premium when it became evident that my kids were spending more time there than watching the TV. I try to do my bit to pay for stuff I like if I can get it without ads. What really annoys me is stuff I pay for that still has ads.
- Tempest1981 6y ago
  Do they all share 1 account? Or is there a family plan?
  - jonny_eh 6y ago
    There are family plans.
manquer 6y ago
The difference is back in 2000s the technically savvy demographic did not have the purchasing power to make a difference , i.e. people who had money to buy things clicked on ads. Things have already changed that is partly why making ads to get easy revenue is harder, in another 20 years there will not be a pre-internet generation who can be dependent on to click ads. However ads are not going away, for example although I pay for YT premium and run ublock origin, there are plenty of ads within the video itself . if you have browsed education videos on YT you will know brands like CuriosityStream, nebula, nordVPN, brilliant, skillshare. etc. Similar and far worse practices happen in other mediums, with influencers on instagram and sponsored posts masquerading as neutral content etc. It is becoming lot harder to filter it out, lesser and lesser ads are effective we will see more of this .
6y ago

zeroonetwothree 6y ago

Having worked there the whole brilliant thing greatly overstated. Lots of mediocre engineers.

earthboundkid 6y ago

The skip ad button is designed to be pressed. It proves to Google that you’re still watching. Indeed you’re watching intently at the countdown clock. The ads front load all the content so they don’t need you to see the second half.

shostack 6y ago

I'm not sure how anyone could look at what Facebook has and continues to do in the AR/VR space and claim they aren't trying to diversify.