4 ms·

I've heard this before about Google, I've never worked there so can't say it's true but if we assume it is: why wouldn't every other tech company also be like t

I've heard this before about Google, I've never worked there so can't say it's true but if we assume it is: why wouldn't every other tech company also be like this? what makes google uniquely vulnerable to failure modes like this?

aerique 4y ago
Eh, have you followed Microsoft in the past? It seems to be par for the course for very big companies. Apple's been doing strange things as well. IBM in the past.
dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago
Because Google has unique policies and culture that generate these outcomes?
- cecilpl2 4y ago
  This is a tautological answer. What are those policies and culture?
colechristensen 4y ago
Google is really big, makes a lot of money on one thing, does a bunch of extra stuff on the side, and doesn't have strong central control. Those things are pretty unique. A few other large companies could do things like this, but don't.
- philistine 4y ago
  Ultimately Google is an ad company. Owning Android is a distracting mistake.
  - 29083011397778 4y ago
    owning Android meant they didn't get locked out of mobile. it would be a lot easier for Microsoft, RIM, or Apple especially to set terms if Google couldn't say it would appear on 80% of the world's smartphones regardless. Owning Anfroid is many things, but saying it's a mistake is borderline laughable.
acdha 4y ago
It’s not unique to them but I think it’s common to companies with a strong cash cow but not a strong culture of accountability - Microsoft felt similar from around the turn of the century until a few years ago because Windows and Office just printed money. If they don’t have some way other than profits to provide accountability, people who are good at playing politics can keep getting promoted because to a first approximation nothing they do will lower revenue.
- snapcaster 4y ago
  I think you're onto something about strong cash cow being necessary but not sure it's sufficient by itself. Culture of accountability is interesting. It sounds like you have some experience, what does culture of accountability look like vs. not having one?
  - acdha 4y ago
    I think the cash cow creates the situation where this is possible: if all your company does is one thing, everyone _knows_ that they have to keep selling whatever that is to stay employed. Where I've seen things run off the rails is when managers’ personal compensation and career trajectory aren't linked to something measurable like that. When I worked for a modest (~30 person) web development company in the late 90s we had much smaller version of this problem where we had regular customers who would pay us for design and new features on their sites but only one of the 4 founding partners was directly generating revenue (one of the best designers I've ever worked with, who was also good at managing a group). That wasn't Google-level cash flow but it meant there was no question of making payroll, etc. because we had major companies who liked us and were doing regular site design updates, marketing campaigns, etc. all of the time. Unfortunately, we also had two partners who loved haring off after whatever cool idea caught their fancy and weren't as good at negotiating deals as they thought (e.g. one guy would ask us for estimates and then tell us he signed the contract at 60% of what we quoted, with our actual cost inevitably being around the original estimate). They could get away with that for years because the company was cash-flow positive and money was pouring into the field from all of the companies moving their business online and/or burning VC funding (I still remember one guy bragging that they had several million dollars of Sun hardware & an Oracle license before they had started an application). Unfortunately, that let them tell themselves they were better at business than they actually were and that meant that they were really unprepared when the market got harder: there were many stories but the one which epitomizes it for me was one of them _turning down_ a massive monthly retainer from the local NFL team to create new designs, content, and games on their website because the team didn't want to put _our_ logo on _their_ homepage — at a time where layoffs were imminent in the next month or two! What could have avoided that would have been judging performance deal by deal rather than company-wide — if you're losing money on 80% of your contracts, the fact that you have a few which are very profitable doesn't mean you should rest easy. I've seen similar situations in .edu and .gov where the problems were different but came back to the underlying problem that how you got favorable reviews and promotions was not coupled to the mission, and as a support service there wasn't a direct negative feedback signal from that.
matwood 4y ago
IDK if they are unique, but Google is really big and feels like it lacks strong leadership and vision. Google has also never struggled or had a catalyzing moment that brings clarity to vision. Apple makes tons of money, but they still have many people in leadership positions who were around when they almost went out of business. FB has always been a bit paranoid, probably b/c they knocked off MySpace. They are having that catalyzing moment right now. MS has had a few of those moments over the years.
toast0 4y ago
As an outsider, it seems like Google makes it easier to start something new. And, it's also heavily encouraged through promotions, "20% time" that doesn't quite exist anymore, etc. There doesn't seem to be a process anywhere that stops people from making another messenger. Or stops a lot of other things. Working at other big internet companies, it was a lot harder to get a new thing going, and promising ideas would get abandoned after a while unless there was a way to work it into an existing product.

aerique 4y ago

Eh, have you followed Microsoft in the past? It seems to be par for the course for very big companies. Apple's been doing strange things as well. IBM in the past.

dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago

Because Google has unique policies and culture that generate these outcomes?

cecilpl2 4y ago
This is a tautological answer. What are those policies and culture?

colechristensen 4y ago

Google is really big, makes a lot of money on one thing, does a bunch of extra stuff on the side, and doesn't have strong central control. Those things are pretty unique. A few other large companies could do things like this, but don't.

philistine 4y ago
Ultimately Google is an ad company. Owning Android is a distracting mistake.
- 29083011397778 4y ago
  owning Android meant they didn't get locked out of mobile. it would be a lot easier for Microsoft, RIM, or Apple especially to set terms if Google couldn't say it would appear on 80% of the world's smartphones regardless. Owning Anfroid is many things, but saying it's a mistake is borderline laughable.

acdha 4y ago

It’s not unique to them but I think it’s common to companies with a strong cash cow but not a strong culture of accountability - Microsoft felt similar from around the turn of the century until a few years ago because Windows and Office just printed money. If they don’t have some way other than profits to provide accountability, people who are good at playing politics can keep getting promoted because to a first approximation nothing they do will lower revenue.

snapcaster 4y ago
I think you're onto something about strong cash cow being necessary but not sure it's sufficient by itself. Culture of accountability is interesting. It sounds like you have some experience, what does culture of accountability look like vs. not having one?
- acdha 4y ago
  I think the cash cow creates the situation where this is possible: if all your company does is one thing, everyone _knows_ that they have to keep selling whatever that is to stay employed. Where I've seen things run off the rails is when managers’ personal compensation and career trajectory aren't linked to something measurable like that. When I worked for a modest (~30 person) web development company in the late 90s we had much smaller version of this problem where we had regular customers who would pay us for design and new features on their sites but only one of the 4 founding partners was directly generating revenue (one of the best designers I've ever worked with, who was also good at managing a group). That wasn't Google-level cash flow but it meant there was no question of making payroll, etc. because we had major companies who liked us and were doing regular site design updates, marketing campaigns, etc. all of the time. Unfortunately, we also had two partners who loved haring off after whatever cool idea caught their fancy and weren't as good at negotiating deals as they thought (e.g. one guy would ask us for estimates and then tell us he signed the contract at 60% of what we quoted, with our actual cost inevitably being around the original estimate). They could get away with that for years because the company was cash-flow positive and money was pouring into the field from all of the companies moving their business online and/or burning VC funding (I still remember one guy bragging that they had several million dollars of Sun hardware & an Oracle license before they had started an application). Unfortunately, that let them tell themselves they were better at business than they actually were and that meant that they were really unprepared when the market got harder: there were many stories but the one which epitomizes it for me was one of them _turning down_ a massive monthly retainer from the local NFL team to create new designs, content, and games on their website because the team didn't want to put _our_ logo on _their_ homepage — at a time where layoffs were imminent in the next month or two! What could have avoided that would have been judging performance deal by deal rather than company-wide — if you're losing money on 80% of your contracts, the fact that you have a few which are very profitable doesn't mean you should rest easy. I've seen similar situations in .edu and .gov where the problems were different but came back to the underlying problem that how you got favorable reviews and promotions was not coupled to the mission, and as a support service there wasn't a direct negative feedback signal from that.

matwood 4y ago

IDK if they are unique, but Google is really big and feels like it lacks strong leadership and vision. Google has also never struggled or had a catalyzing moment that brings clarity to vision. Apple makes tons of money, but they still have many people in leadership positions who were around when they almost went out of business. FB has always been a bit paranoid, probably b/c they knocked off MySpace. They are having that catalyzing moment right now. MS has had a few of those moments over the years.

toast0 4y ago

As an outsider, it seems like Google makes it easier to start something new. And, it's also heavily encouraged through promotions, "20% time" that doesn't quite exist anymore, etc. There doesn't seem to be a process anywhere that stops people from making another messenger. Or stops a lot of other things. Working at other big internet companies, it was a lot harder to get a new thing going, and promising ideas would get abandoned after a while unless there was a way to work it into an existing product.