> Why does it feel like no other software company has these sort of branding issues? Google's internal incentive structure strongly favors shipping — at least,

> Why does it feel like no other software company has these sort of branding issues? Google's internal incentive structure strongly favors shipping — at least, it did back in the day, and I believe that's still true now to a great extent. Steve Yegge said it most concisely back in 2006 [1]: "At Google, projects launch because it's the least-energy state for the system." The problem is that when one dedicates so much optimization power to shipping, there's less left over for things like maintenance and support. That might not be a huge deal for any individual product, but in the aggregate it sets a higher bar for keeping an initiative running — which presents externally as an excessive proclivity for killing products. That perception, in turn, erodes user trust in the continuing existence of Google's portfolio of non-flagship products. And that leads to even fewer of those products clearing the bar for maintenance funding, because users are less willing to commit to using a product that may be discontinued. Google's shipping-first bias was probably a huge advantage for them in the early days. But sometimes a company outgrows aspects of its culture. [1] https://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/09/ https://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/09/