3 ms·

This seems like another incredible example of a bad product management strategy of "whatever some employee wants to do". Why would a major product direction be

This seems like another incredible example of a bad product management strategy of "whatever some employee wants to do". Why would a major product direction be shelved because one guy switched jobs? If it was a good product, Google should restaff the project. If it was not a good product, Google should seriously rethink the autonomy it gives staff to decide to launch new products.

cat199 5y ago
he moved fast, and things broke - what's not to like?
kevmo314 5y ago
Seems like a pretty good strategy to me. It's cool that one employee can drive such a large change. Google should get better at retaining talent though to mitigate this type of risk.
- kyrra 5y ago
  Caeser was a VP at Google. In the story from when he left[0], his replacement has 3,700 people under him. So it's a single person with a huge amount of influence. Bill Ready came in and decided to do something different. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28251591 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28251591
mywittyname 5y ago
> This seems like another incredible example of a bad product management strategy of "whatever some employee wants to do". It would be bad if they used this strategy for every employee, but for certain employees, notably, those who are likely to go found their own startups, it can be a great idea. Google gets the potential to finance a "startup" for a fraction of the hypothetical acquisition costs, and the downside is paying the salary of a few dead weights if the produce never takes off.
- ocdtrekkie 5y ago
  I understand that concept, but there are better ways to do that. Nobody is shocked when an Area 120 app (or a Microsoft Garage app) gets shelved, because those are "brands" specifically for Google and Microsoft to experiment with startupy apps. But when Google decides to put their main brand behind something, announce it to the world, start collecting signups, only to shut it down, that ends up continuing to burn the company's reputation. In this case, it also represented a significant partnership with a major bank, which may have burned some bridges along the way. And bear in mind, in this case, it sounds like this VP had 3,700 employees under him... hardly a trivial cost of all the wasted effort.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

cat199 5y ago

he moved fast, and things broke - what's not to like?

kevmo314 5y ago

Seems like a pretty good strategy to me. It's cool that one employee can drive such a large change. Google should get better at retaining talent though to mitigate this type of risk.

kyrra 5y ago
Caeser was a VP at Google. In the story from when he left[0], his replacement has 3,700 people under him. So it's a single person with a huge amount of influence. Bill Ready came in and decided to do something different. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28251591 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28251591

mywittyname 5y ago

> This seems like another incredible example of a bad product management strategy of "whatever some employee wants to do". It would be bad if they used this strategy for every employee, but for certain employees, notably, those who are likely to go found their own startups, it can be a great idea. Google gets the potential to finance a "startup" for a fraction of the hypothetical acquisition costs, and the downside is paying the salary of a few dead weights if the produce never takes off.

ocdtrekkie 5y ago
I understand that concept, but there are better ways to do that. Nobody is shocked when an Area 120 app (or a Microsoft Garage app) gets shelved, because those are "brands" specifically for Google and Microsoft to experiment with startupy apps. But when Google decides to put their main brand behind something, announce it to the world, start collecting signups, only to shut it down, that ends up continuing to burn the company's reputation. In this case, it also represented a significant partnership with a major bank, which may have burned some bridges along the way. And bear in mind, in this case, it sounds like this VP had 3,700 employees under him... hardly a trivial cost of all the wasted effort.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]