3 ms·
I just never understood how Google, with 100,000 employees, could let such a mainstream product display such shoddy functionality that is not rocket science. T
by supernova87a 6y ago
I just never understood how Google, with 100,000 employees, could let such a mainstream product display such shoddy functionality that is not rocket science.
Their interface couldn't drag and drop stock tickers, reorganize your list, update correctly, etc. Basic usability.
Maybe I don't know how tech companies' product management works, if it's underresourced or what, but such a giant company allowing a product (a simple, basic, not even requiring huge product innovation) to sleepwalk is hard to understand.
Do their team not get rewarded for working on basic, non-flashy products? Is that why it stagnated?
- adventured 6y agoThere isn't much money to be derived from the product (as is) and it takes a small team of people to focus on it in order to maintain it. Someone with at least a modicum of influence has to care about the product and drive resources at it persistently so it doesn't rot. Google is unlikely to want to go further and build or acquire a stock broker business, so they're going to struggle to extract much money out of the category over time. This is Google doing the bare minimum as an alternative to just shutting down another product. I'm surprised it has survived this long.
- brown9-2 6y agoInstitutionally, Google has a hard time caring about things that won’t scale to large revenue.
- htrp 6y agoProfessionally, googlers don't care about products that won't get them promoted, google finance was about as boring as it came.