4 ms·

> If you can generate $50m of revenue by working 2 hours a day then you're brilliant at your job Sure, but Google and other big tech have a completely differen

> If you can generate $50m of revenue by working 2 hours a day then you're brilliant at your job Sure, but Google and other big tech have a completely different problem. Their one product makes so much money, that there is not a natural forcing function for other ventures to succeed or fail. This lets them take moonshots, but also makes it easy to slip into making bad investment decisions. For example, green-lighting a team to build another chat app.

gumby 4y ago
> Their one product makes so much money, that there is not a natural forcing function for other ventures to succeed or fail. This is what appalled me about Pichai’s productivity comment. Google may not have high productivity, but that’s not its problem. The company has just drifted since Schmidt stopped running it, reminiscent of Microsoft in the second half (and before?) of the Ballmer period. The ladder-climbing PMs are running the show and there is no overall strategy.
- GlennS 4y ago
  Not knowing anything about how Google works internally, this is very much how it looks from the outside. They just don't seem to be able to make products that anyone wants. And the products they made before which people did want just drift in a generally worse direction as they fiddle with them randomly over time.
  - whatarethembits 4y ago
    They have no coherent vision. As a consumer I have no idea what I'm getting with a Google product, or what their ethos is. Their products and features are always randomly baked together, without any coherent story. Left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. I can't rely on any of it. This is why I moved to Apple eco system last year. Google as a company seems analogous to the Linux eco system; TON of duplicated work across different teams, none providing an actual complete solution for day to day use. Such a waste of talent.
- cmrdporcupine 4y ago
  Before I left Google, and in the BeforeTimes(tm) Schmidt came to our Google office in Waterloo and did a little all-hands thing and spoke. Not in a capacity as Google mgmt or decision maker but as himself. It was interesting. One of the things he said that stuck out to me was basically "I am baffled how these really large teams you have can work I can't imagine software development working well beyond a handful of engineers before the telephone game problem kicks in" [paraphrased]. Me too, Eric, me too.
  - dekhn 4y ago
    at the beginning of the 2007 real estate debacle, right after the markets had shut down, Eric got up in front of TGIF and told people it was going to be OK, that Google was in a better situation than most, and since things would eventually recover, it made sense for the company to continue being aggressive at a time when others were not. This helped position Google for tremendous growth in the years after. I think that's also the TGIF where he announced a company-wide 10% raise. I met Eric later and we chatted about my project and how Google should be more aggressive at getting into Cloud. He and I thought on pretty much the same wavelength and I realized- he was a far better leader of Google than either Page or Pichai.
    - cmrdporcupine 4y ago
      He's a smart guy but honestly, I think he also lost touch just like Page etc. When he came to Waterloo to visit it was because he happened to be in Toronto pitching the Sidewalk Labs "spy^H^H^Hsmart" city thing. Remember that? Look it up. Fiasco IMHO. To me, being deeply involved in that debacle is indicative of a kind of business and intellectual arrogance that seems out of touch with reality. He used to bring Henry Kissinger in for "fireside chats" at Google. He seemed/seems very fascinating by this kind of ... technocratic realpolitik. Google playing around in that area is a really not good look and did not in general get good reaction from the staff and looks really dubious in the current era. There's enough ungrounded conspiracy theories about Google, they don't need, y'know, actual conspiracies. But as a manager he definitely seemed to have a better sense of how the day to day operation of a large engineering firm can work.

gumby 4y ago

> Their one product makes so much money, that there is not a natural forcing function for other ventures to succeed or fail. This is what appalled me about Pichai’s productivity comment. Google may not have high productivity, but that’s not its problem. The company has just drifted since Schmidt stopped running it, reminiscent of Microsoft in the second half (and before?) of the Ballmer period. The ladder-climbing PMs are running the show and there is no overall strategy.

GlennS 4y ago
Not knowing anything about how Google works internally, this is very much how it looks from the outside. They just don't seem to be able to make products that anyone wants. And the products they made before which people did want just drift in a generally worse direction as they fiddle with them randomly over time.
- whatarethembits 4y ago
  They have no coherent vision. As a consumer I have no idea what I'm getting with a Google product, or what their ethos is. Their products and features are always randomly baked together, without any coherent story. Left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. I can't rely on any of it. This is why I moved to Apple eco system last year. Google as a company seems analogous to the Linux eco system; TON of duplicated work across different teams, none providing an actual complete solution for day to day use. Such a waste of talent.
cmrdporcupine 4y ago
Before I left Google, and in the BeforeTimes(tm) Schmidt came to our Google office in Waterloo and did a little all-hands thing and spoke. Not in a capacity as Google mgmt or decision maker but as himself. It was interesting. One of the things he said that stuck out to me was basically "I am baffled how these really large teams you have can work I can't imagine software development working well beyond a handful of engineers before the telephone game problem kicks in" [paraphrased]. Me too, Eric, me too.
- dekhn 4y ago
  at the beginning of the 2007 real estate debacle, right after the markets had shut down, Eric got up in front of TGIF and told people it was going to be OK, that Google was in a better situation than most, and since things would eventually recover, it made sense for the company to continue being aggressive at a time when others were not. This helped position Google for tremendous growth in the years after. I think that's also the TGIF where he announced a company-wide 10% raise. I met Eric later and we chatted about my project and how Google should be more aggressive at getting into Cloud. He and I thought on pretty much the same wavelength and I realized- he was a far better leader of Google than either Page or Pichai.
  - cmrdporcupine 4y ago
    He's a smart guy but honestly, I think he also lost touch just like Page etc. When he came to Waterloo to visit it was because he happened to be in Toronto pitching the Sidewalk Labs "spy^H^H^Hsmart" city thing. Remember that? Look it up. Fiasco IMHO. To me, being deeply involved in that debacle is indicative of a kind of business and intellectual arrogance that seems out of touch with reality. He used to bring Henry Kissinger in for "fireside chats" at Google. He seemed/seems very fascinating by this kind of ... technocratic realpolitik. Google playing around in that area is a really not good look and did not in general get good reaction from the staff and looks really dubious in the current era. There's enough ungrounded conspiracy theories about Google, they don't need, y'know, actual conspiracies. But as a manager he definitely seemed to have a better sense of how the day to day operation of a large engineering firm can work.