4 ms·

I don't think Google's problem comes from productivity losses, and I think leadership is to blame exclusively for this. Google lost focus of what made it great

I don't think Google's problem comes from productivity losses, and I think leadership is to blame exclusively for this. Google lost focus of what made it great under the CEO that's now demanding better productivity and focus, so I wonder what the problem here is. Google also has(had?) great employees but somehow great products aren't coming out, the cure isn't more productivity imo but better vision and leadership.

etempleton 4y ago
A lot of companies, Google included, seem to lack focus and vision. Google is doing a million things and seems half committed to most of them. How many products and services have Google launched, neglected, and then killed in short time? Look at Stadia. What was that? Why even try if you aren’t going to follow through.
- solardev 4y ago
  Maybe Google should just start building cemeteries. They're really good at that. https://killedbygoogle.com/ https://killedbygoogle.com/
- bayofpigs 4y ago
  Also failing to provide reasonable customer support for their successful projects worsens my trust in future projects.
- kyrra 4y ago
  Stadia has not been cancelled. It's a rumor. It has traction only because Google has cancelled too many products. Go read the HN thread on it, people there were calling it poorly sourced.
  - SteveNuts 4y ago
    At this point I'll be shocked if Stadia isn't cancelled, that's just what Google does and their customers know it by now. It's become a self fulfilling prophecy.
    - solardev 4y ago
      There was a discussion about this just yesterday or so (sorry, on mobile, hard to find). But I think a while ago they already pivoted to selling/renting the underlying tech to other businesses instead of trying to be a game marketplace. What's left of consumer Stadia is just dying day by day... not that it was ever particularly healthy.
  - solardev 4y ago
    Honestly, it's questionable whether Stadia was ever alive to begin with. It's been neglected ever since inception.
  - dexwiz 4y ago
    Friend of a friend story: one of the POs left days after launch, because they knew it would never replace consoles/desktops. It's really struggled to find footing since. Personal theory: Stadia is a precursor to Rendering as a Service for AR/VR. It will be a long time before we can render a high-quality content for stereoscopic vision with a mobile device. But if you can solve the streaming problem, you can just offload it to the cloud. Issue is that any tracking lag that causes motionsickness now will just be magnified.
    - solardev 4y ago
      It's tempting to think there was some grand plan for Stadia, but more likely it was just another failed copycat like Google Plus. Game streaming tech was around before Stadia, and Nvidia is doing it much better now. I don't see how Google could ever compete directly with that unless they get into the GPU business themselves.
  - etempleton 4y ago
    It has not been cancelled, but it is not being supported. It might as well be dead. My understanding is they are pivoting to white label services, but I am not sure if that is more than conjecture.
- notsapiensatall 4y ago
  It feels like big tech companies enforce a vicious cycle on the software landscape. Step 0: Someone has a good idea and builds a solid product around it. Step 1: BigCo sees the new growth budding out of the software landscape. Step 2a: BigCo buys the new property, refuses to take risks with their new acquisition, and eventually shutters it when it stops printing money. Step 2b: BigCo sues the new entrant into the ground. Step 2c: BigCo launches a competitor/fork, gains market share by operating it at a loss, then shutters it when it fails to turn a profit. Step 3: Innovation is stifled, start over.
  - 1ark 4y ago
    Seen it so many times as a customer of startups. “This is an awesome SaaS!” Then they sell it to BigCo, and less than a year later it is at best loosely integrated or worse sunset. Innovation and this form of capitalism is not a good match if we value innovation as a society. Probably that is also why we read so many comments saying “We did this 20 years ago with…” here when new tech is released. A long repeating cycle where only scraps of innovation is kept.
- PainfullyNormal 4y ago
  I wonder if the root of the issue is profit expectations. Their main business, Google search, makes mad cash. Why would Google keep something around that makes only a tiny fraction of what their main business does? Why try new things at all? Because they realize that they need to diversify and try to find something that can bring in money to rival their main business in case their main business goes away. I don't agree with this cycle, by the way. How can something make the same amount of money as google search if they don't put the same sort of resources into promotion and give it time to grow? But, I don't have an MBA.
  - solardev 4y ago
    I dunno about that. Once upon time, after search but before the modern era, they built (or bought and then integrated) very useful things like Android or Maps or Docs or Gmail. But they still took risks back then.
    - Traubenfuchs 4y ago
      > very useful things like Android or Maps or Docs or Gmail Which have become an overengineered mess with stagnating core features and a trickle of fresh, ad related nuisances.
      - solardev 4y ago
        True :( Especially Maps
  - etempleton 4y ago
    I agree. Part of the conversation around Stadia before launch was, “how long until they kill it.” That is their reputation as a company.
  - hgs3 4y ago
    > I wonder if the root of the issue is profit expectations. When I was a youngster I was taught that capitalism promoted hard work and innovation, but it seems like that's only true during a growth phase. Once you've got a cash cow there is no reason to innovate, once you've sold or licensed a patent you can cruise on royalties, and if some upstart threatens you then sue, slander, or buy them. Beyond a certain tipping point the need for profit hampers if not outright suppresses innovation.
joecot 4y ago
You get promoted at Google not for improving and maintaining great products, but for building and releasing a product. This is why you see them building seemingly competing products for the exact same sector (Duo and Allo anyone?). Someone leads the project, they get dozens of engineers to work on it, it gets released and announced at Google I/O. The manager who got the project completed gets promoted, the product ends up languishing. There's no incentive to maintain a product, or improve a product, so Google just puts out an endless series of half baked products and abandons them, while existing products are barely touched. If their only real goal is to produce new executives and higher level managers, the system works great.

etempleton 4y ago

A lot of companies, Google included, seem to lack focus and vision. Google is doing a million things and seems half committed to most of them. How many products and services have Google launched, neglected, and then killed in short time? Look at Stadia. What was that? Why even try if you aren’t going to follow through.

solardev 4y ago
Maybe Google should just start building cemeteries. They're really good at that. https://killedbygoogle.com/ https://killedbygoogle.com/
bayofpigs 4y ago
Also failing to provide reasonable customer support for their successful projects worsens my trust in future projects.
kyrra 4y ago
Stadia has not been cancelled. It's a rumor. It has traction only because Google has cancelled too many products. Go read the HN thread on it, people there were calling it poorly sourced.
- SteveNuts 4y ago
  At this point I'll be shocked if Stadia isn't cancelled, that's just what Google does and their customers know it by now. It's become a self fulfilling prophecy.
  - solardev 4y ago
    There was a discussion about this just yesterday or so (sorry, on mobile, hard to find). But I think a while ago they already pivoted to selling/renting the underlying tech to other businesses instead of trying to be a game marketplace. What's left of consumer Stadia is just dying day by day... not that it was ever particularly healthy.
- solardev 4y ago
  Honestly, it's questionable whether Stadia was ever alive to begin with. It's been neglected ever since inception.
- dexwiz 4y ago
  Friend of a friend story: one of the POs left days after launch, because they knew it would never replace consoles/desktops. It's really struggled to find footing since. Personal theory: Stadia is a precursor to Rendering as a Service for AR/VR. It will be a long time before we can render a high-quality content for stereoscopic vision with a mobile device. But if you can solve the streaming problem, you can just offload it to the cloud. Issue is that any tracking lag that causes motionsickness now will just be magnified.
  - solardev 4y ago
    It's tempting to think there was some grand plan for Stadia, but more likely it was just another failed copycat like Google Plus. Game streaming tech was around before Stadia, and Nvidia is doing it much better now. I don't see how Google could ever compete directly with that unless they get into the GPU business themselves.
- etempleton 4y ago
  It has not been cancelled, but it is not being supported. It might as well be dead. My understanding is they are pivoting to white label services, but I am not sure if that is more than conjecture.
notsapiensatall 4y ago
It feels like big tech companies enforce a vicious cycle on the software landscape. Step 0: Someone has a good idea and builds a solid product around it. Step 1: BigCo sees the new growth budding out of the software landscape. Step 2a: BigCo buys the new property, refuses to take risks with their new acquisition, and eventually shutters it when it stops printing money. Step 2b: BigCo sues the new entrant into the ground. Step 2c: BigCo launches a competitor/fork, gains market share by operating it at a loss, then shutters it when it fails to turn a profit. Step 3: Innovation is stifled, start over.
- 1ark 4y ago
  Seen it so many times as a customer of startups. “This is an awesome SaaS!” Then they sell it to BigCo, and less than a year later it is at best loosely integrated or worse sunset. Innovation and this form of capitalism is not a good match if we value innovation as a society. Probably that is also why we read so many comments saying “We did this 20 years ago with…” here when new tech is released. A long repeating cycle where only scraps of innovation is kept.
PainfullyNormal 4y ago
I wonder if the root of the issue is profit expectations. Their main business, Google search, makes mad cash. Why would Google keep something around that makes only a tiny fraction of what their main business does? Why try new things at all? Because they realize that they need to diversify and try to find something that can bring in money to rival their main business in case their main business goes away. I don't agree with this cycle, by the way. How can something make the same amount of money as google search if they don't put the same sort of resources into promotion and give it time to grow? But, I don't have an MBA.
- solardev 4y ago
  I dunno about that. Once upon time, after search but before the modern era, they built (or bought and then integrated) very useful things like Android or Maps or Docs or Gmail. But they still took risks back then.
  - Traubenfuchs 4y ago
    > very useful things like Android or Maps or Docs or Gmail Which have become an overengineered mess with stagnating core features and a trickle of fresh, ad related nuisances.
    - solardev 4y ago
      True :( Especially Maps
- etempleton 4y ago
  I agree. Part of the conversation around Stadia before launch was, “how long until they kill it.” That is their reputation as a company.
- hgs3 4y ago
  > I wonder if the root of the issue is profit expectations. When I was a youngster I was taught that capitalism promoted hard work and innovation, but it seems like that's only true during a growth phase. Once you've got a cash cow there is no reason to innovate, once you've sold or licensed a patent you can cruise on royalties, and if some upstart threatens you then sue, slander, or buy them. Beyond a certain tipping point the need for profit hampers if not outright suppresses innovation.

joecot 4y ago

You get promoted at Google not for improving and maintaining great products, but for building and releasing a product. This is why you see them building seemingly competing products for the exact same sector (Duo and Allo anyone?). Someone leads the project, they get dozens of engineers to work on it, it gets released and announced at Google I/O. The manager who got the project completed gets promoted, the product ends up languishing. There's no incentive to maintain a product, or improve a product, so Google just puts out an endless series of half baked products and abandons them, while existing products are barely touched. If their only real goal is to produce new executives and higher level managers, the system works great.