8 ms·

> Third, a lot of Pichai's big bets have failed: Google Glass, Google Plus, Google Wave, Project Loon Every single one of these predates Pichai, who only becam

> Third, a lot of Pichai's big bets have failed: Google Glass, Google Plus, Google Wave, Project Loon Every single one of these predates Pichai, who only became CEO in 2015: * Google Wave was already turned down in 2012 * Google Plus launched in 2011 and the writing was on the wall by 2015 * Google Glass consumer edition was discontinued in Jan 2015 before Pichai started * Loon is the only arguable exception; it was started in 2011 but only promoted into an official Bet during Pichai's tenure in 2018. However, it was also an experiment from day 1, not "the next big thing" like Wave/Plus/Glass were supposed to be.

retox 5y ago
Now you've seen how a "journalist" doesn't have the patience to spend 60 seconds searching for something you're knowledgeable about, will you (not you specifically) take as gospel anything they say about something you're not knowledgeable about? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnesiaEffect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnes...
- zimpenfish 5y ago
  I have to say, I find this bit amusing: "That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I'd point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say." The last 4 years of US politics (and 20? of UK politics) have given the lie to that belief. [edit: added UK politics because they're just as bad]
  - Tarsul 5y ago
    It's the same with typical sales persons: Even though they constantly exaggerate, you want to believe (unless there's animosity). So you take it into account that they exaggerate, but not by as much as they do exaggerate. Which means it's still better for them to do it than not. At least that's my impression of these dynamics, would love good studies about it.
    - alisonkisk 5y ago
      It's well studied that over time people believe lies even if they know they are lies, because we remember things by association, not rigorously. We easily remember that X is associated with Y, but it's hard to remember if the correlation is to Y or to NOT Y.
      - visarga 5y ago
        You mean people are not perfect causal reasoning agents? The shock. /s So many AI models have been ridiculed for the same flaw - learning correlations.
  - Dah00n 5y ago
    Are you saying most people would answer Yes to "Are politicians trustworthy?" because then I clearly live in a completely different bubble than you do and have a very different interpretation of TV speaking heads talking about the issue. In my bubble at least 90% would say that US politicians are not trustworthy (no idea about UK). Not much different if you ask about Trump or Biden either.
    - BobbyJo 5y ago
      I kind of see it both ways. 90% of people would call all politicians liars, but every person in that 90% has their pet politician that can do no wrong.
      - Dah00n 5y ago
        I'm guessing a "pet politician" is a very American Thing -though I have nothing to base it on but my own opinion- since US politics are very much based on specific persons while I'm used to people looking at politics as a big group of people they vote for out of many parties. There are currently 15 parties to vote for here in Denmark, with a government on average being based on 2-3 of them. A single person rarely get more votes than 1% in our elections because most vote for the party, not the person.
        BobbyJo 5y ago
        I'm speaking specifically about individuals people vote for among the hoard in any given party or set of parties. For instance, my grandfather who thinks all politicians are crooks, believes almost everything Trump says, and my girlfriend who likewise thinks all politicians are liars, takes everything AOC says as gospel. Both disagree with a lot of what the respective parties do, or want.
    - saalweachter 5y ago
      Eh, your view of other people's cynicism is too absolute. People distrust politicians ... except. Except for their favorite politician, except for their party, except for the ones they voted for, except... You see this with Congress writ large. People hate Congress, its approval ratings are through the floor. But they like their own Congresspeople. Sure, gerrymandering, safe districts, etc, but by and large people are much happier with their own Representatives than everyone else's.
  - majormajor 5y ago
    If somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to their boss, they just might get promoted! Let's not act like news readers or politicians are different sorts of humans than anyone else.
- moritzwarhier 5y ago
  I'm not convinced. The wiki article you linked to is a paragraph in an article about a novelist, not an article about widely-accepted term. And rightfully so. Google Plus and Google Glass were big bets in my view. That doesn't take away from Google being unscrupulous in ending unsuccessful offerings. That's part of what made them succesful, I assume. Journalists often use hyperbole or simplify complex facts to deliver an interesting and easily understandable story. That doesn't make every sinplification a gross misrepresentation. You're free to dive deeper into any topic you want, but it's delusional to expect every reader to be an expert in every field. Bashing journalism as a whole has become common gospel, but to me it seems that the effect of that thinking is not that people become better informed. The article sounds Google-friendly and uncritical to me, but it's also very common to cover interviews in a way that represents the views of the interviewed person.
  - moritzwarhier 5y ago
    OK, after reading a bit more about the persons responsible for the mentioned products, I'll admit the "big bets" part maybe was a gross misrepresentation.
- jancsika 5y ago
  It appears you are attempting to indict the entire field of journalism by referring to a cocktail story told by a sci-fi writer. Wouldn't it make more sense to study the field and sort journalists into groups based on their performance over time? Even casual sports fan do that kind of work reflexively. I don't get why journalism should be treated any different, and I especially don't get the desire to find an anecdote that could reject the entire field out of hand. Put differently-- if Glenn Greenwald publishes another leak-based story about state-level corruption, I'll read it and ascribe more veracity to him than I will Crichton's cocktail story. I'll bet you a dollar that when/if I do that, nothing bad will happen as a result.
  - knolax 5y ago
    I think most people have never in their life read an article by a journalist about something they're knowledgeable of that wasn't complete dogshit. You mention Glenn Greenwald because presumably you're not an expert on state-level corruption. Pretty much any piece of journalism on any topic you can poke plenty of holes in with some research. Hell some articles you can use the article itself to disprove the main point the journalist was trying to make. At some point overwhelming empirical evidence can elevate a "cocktail story" to a rule of thumb.
vkou 5y ago
Wave also largely turned into Enterprise Apps - docs, hangouts, etc. Plus was Larry's and Vic's baby.
sgift 5y ago
And isn't Google Glass redirected at companies were it enjoys (a moderate) success?
- codyogden 5y ago
  Correct. It’s been utilized in a highly limited capacity in enterprise conditions, like manufacturing. The Community Edition (aka consumer version) was killed.
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    And not because of lack of demand because of fears we would be recorded everywhere. Fast forward and we are recorded everywhere anyways.
onion2k 5y ago
Pinchai joined Google in 2004, and was "Product Chief" prior to becoming CEO. He's been responsible for a lot of Google products.
- ahiknsr 5y ago
  > Third, a lot of Pichai's big bets have failed: Google Glass, Google Plus, Google Wave, Project Loon > He's been responsible for a lot of Google products. He might have been responsible but i wouldn't call those projects as Pichai's big bets.
  - moshiv 5y ago
    Pichai is there to keep the factory lights on and the assembly line running. Nobody is expecting anything more from him.
    - shric 5y ago
      The most accurate analogy for that responsibility would be Benjamin Treynor Sloss
    - sn41 5y ago
      You're wrong there I think. I personally was surprised by Chrome and the way it took off - initially when it started it looked like a me too product, it seemed pointless to repeat the good work at Firefox. And Android was also a good bet, though in my humble view, not as good a one as Chrome. Sundar got some big calls right.
      - sjg007 5y ago
        Chromebooks too.
- detaro 5y ago
  > was "Product Chief" prior to becoming CEO for about a year, so still after all those dates. I'd guess Wave fell into his previous responsibility though.
allyourhorses 5y ago
> However, it was also an experiment from day 1, not "the next big thing" Not sure I understand that distinction. If I label all my projects as experiments, do I also get to escape culpability for their failure while loading on the self-praise when they succeed?
- alisonkisk 5y ago
  Yes. The best baseball players miss almost every swing. The best poker players lose almost every hand.
- Clewza313 5y ago
  Kinda? All of Alphabet's Bets including Loon are explicitly high-risk, high-reward "moonshots", meaning it's expected for many if not most to fail. By contrast, Wave, Plus and Glass were all consumer products from the mothership that were heavily hyped as being the Next Big Thing that would revolutionize work/IM, social networks and mobile phones respectively.
  - dekhn 5y ago
    loon was neither high risk or high reward. it was just an internet balloon.
    - nostrademons 5y ago
      A lot of Loon's early engineers were drawn from a team I was on, because Loon's founder (Mike Cassidy) was our PM's boss. When our PM left to work with him, he said "It's a crazy idea. Less than 5% chance of success." He joined it anyway. The team certainly felt it was both high risk and high reward.
      - dekhn 5y ago
        But... why? It's just a balloon with internet. All the failures would be a lack of business model, not the technology.

retox 5y ago

Now you've seen how a "journalist" doesn't have the patience to spend 60 seconds searching for something you're knowledgeable about, will you (not you specifically) take as gospel anything they say about something you're not knowledgeable about? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnesiaEffect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnes...

zimpenfish 5y ago
I have to say, I find this bit amusing: "That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I'd point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say." The last 4 years of US politics (and 20? of UK politics) have given the lie to that belief. [edit: added UK politics because they're just as bad]
- Tarsul 5y ago
  It's the same with typical sales persons: Even though they constantly exaggerate, you want to believe (unless there's animosity). So you take it into account that they exaggerate, but not by as much as they do exaggerate. Which means it's still better for them to do it than not. At least that's my impression of these dynamics, would love good studies about it.
  - alisonkisk 5y ago
    It's well studied that over time people believe lies even if they know they are lies, because we remember things by association, not rigorously. We easily remember that X is associated with Y, but it's hard to remember if the correlation is to Y or to NOT Y.
    - visarga 5y ago
      You mean people are not perfect causal reasoning agents? The shock. /s So many AI models have been ridiculed for the same flaw - learning correlations.
- Dah00n 5y ago
  Are you saying most people would answer Yes to "Are politicians trustworthy?" because then I clearly live in a completely different bubble than you do and have a very different interpretation of TV speaking heads talking about the issue. In my bubble at least 90% would say that US politicians are not trustworthy (no idea about UK). Not much different if you ask about Trump or Biden either.
  - BobbyJo 5y ago
    I kind of see it both ways. 90% of people would call all politicians liars, but every person in that 90% has their pet politician that can do no wrong.
    - Dah00n 5y ago
      I'm guessing a "pet politician" is a very American Thing -though I have nothing to base it on but my own opinion- since US politics are very much based on specific persons while I'm used to people looking at politics as a big group of people they vote for out of many parties. There are currently 15 parties to vote for here in Denmark, with a government on average being based on 2-3 of them. A single person rarely get more votes than 1% in our elections because most vote for the party, not the person.
      - BobbyJo 5y ago
        I'm speaking specifically about individuals people vote for among the hoard in any given party or set of parties. For instance, my grandfather who thinks all politicians are crooks, believes almost everything Trump says, and my girlfriend who likewise thinks all politicians are liars, takes everything AOC says as gospel. Both disagree with a lot of what the respective parties do, or want.
  - saalweachter 5y ago
    Eh, your view of other people's cynicism is too absolute. People distrust politicians ... except. Except for their favorite politician, except for their party, except for the ones they voted for, except... You see this with Congress writ large. People hate Congress, its approval ratings are through the floor. But they like their own Congresspeople. Sure, gerrymandering, safe districts, etc, but by and large people are much happier with their own Representatives than everyone else's.
- majormajor 5y ago
  If somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to their boss, they just might get promoted! Let's not act like news readers or politicians are different sorts of humans than anyone else.
moritzwarhier 5y ago
I'm not convinced. The wiki article you linked to is a paragraph in an article about a novelist, not an article about widely-accepted term. And rightfully so. Google Plus and Google Glass were big bets in my view. That doesn't take away from Google being unscrupulous in ending unsuccessful offerings. That's part of what made them succesful, I assume. Journalists often use hyperbole or simplify complex facts to deliver an interesting and easily understandable story. That doesn't make every sinplification a gross misrepresentation. You're free to dive deeper into any topic you want, but it's delusional to expect every reader to be an expert in every field. Bashing journalism as a whole has become common gospel, but to me it seems that the effect of that thinking is not that people become better informed. The article sounds Google-friendly and uncritical to me, but it's also very common to cover interviews in a way that represents the views of the interviewed person.
- moritzwarhier 5y ago
  OK, after reading a bit more about the persons responsible for the mentioned products, I'll admit the "big bets" part maybe was a gross misrepresentation.
jancsika 5y ago
It appears you are attempting to indict the entire field of journalism by referring to a cocktail story told by a sci-fi writer. Wouldn't it make more sense to study the field and sort journalists into groups based on their performance over time? Even casual sports fan do that kind of work reflexively. I don't get why journalism should be treated any different, and I especially don't get the desire to find an anecdote that could reject the entire field out of hand. Put differently-- if Glenn Greenwald publishes another leak-based story about state-level corruption, I'll read it and ascribe more veracity to him than I will Crichton's cocktail story. I'll bet you a dollar that when/if I do that, nothing bad will happen as a result.
- knolax 5y ago
  I think most people have never in their life read an article by a journalist about something they're knowledgeable of that wasn't complete dogshit. You mention Glenn Greenwald because presumably you're not an expert on state-level corruption. Pretty much any piece of journalism on any topic you can poke plenty of holes in with some research. Hell some articles you can use the article itself to disprove the main point the journalist was trying to make. At some point overwhelming empirical evidence can elevate a "cocktail story" to a rule of thumb.

vkou 5y ago

Wave also largely turned into Enterprise Apps - docs, hangouts, etc. Plus was Larry's and Vic's baby.

sgift 5y ago

And isn't Google Glass redirected at companies were it enjoys (a moderate) success?

codyogden 5y ago
Correct. It’s been utilized in a highly limited capacity in enterprise conditions, like manufacturing. The Community Edition (aka consumer version) was killed.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  And not because of lack of demand because of fears we would be recorded everywhere. Fast forward and we are recorded everywhere anyways.

onion2k 5y ago

Pinchai joined Google in 2004, and was "Product Chief" prior to becoming CEO. He's been responsible for a lot of Google products.

ahiknsr 5y ago
> Third, a lot of Pichai's big bets have failed: Google Glass, Google Plus, Google Wave, Project Loon > He's been responsible for a lot of Google products. He might have been responsible but i wouldn't call those projects as Pichai's big bets.
- moshiv 5y ago
  Pichai is there to keep the factory lights on and the assembly line running. Nobody is expecting anything more from him.
  - shric 5y ago
    The most accurate analogy for that responsibility would be Benjamin Treynor Sloss
  - sn41 5y ago
    You're wrong there I think. I personally was surprised by Chrome and the way it took off - initially when it started it looked like a me too product, it seemed pointless to repeat the good work at Firefox. And Android was also a good bet, though in my humble view, not as good a one as Chrome. Sundar got some big calls right.
    - sjg007 5y ago
      Chromebooks too.
detaro 5y ago
> was "Product Chief" prior to becoming CEO for about a year, so still after all those dates. I'd guess Wave fell into his previous responsibility though.

allyourhorses 5y ago

> However, it was also an experiment from day 1, not "the next big thing" Not sure I understand that distinction. If I label all my projects as experiments, do I also get to escape culpability for their failure while loading on the self-praise when they succeed?

alisonkisk 5y ago
Yes. The best baseball players miss almost every swing. The best poker players lose almost every hand.
Clewza313 5y ago
Kinda? All of Alphabet's Bets including Loon are explicitly high-risk, high-reward "moonshots", meaning it's expected for many if not most to fail. By contrast, Wave, Plus and Glass were all consumer products from the mothership that were heavily hyped as being the Next Big Thing that would revolutionize work/IM, social networks and mobile phones respectively.
- dekhn 5y ago
  loon was neither high risk or high reward. it was just an internet balloon.
  - nostrademons 5y ago
    A lot of Loon's early engineers were drawn from a team I was on, because Loon's founder (Mike Cassidy) was our PM's boss. When our PM left to work with him, he said "It's a crazy idea. Less than 5% chance of success." He joined it anyway. The team certainly felt it was both high risk and high reward.
    - dekhn 5y ago
      But... why? It's just a balloon with internet. All the failures would be a lack of business model, not the technology.