4 ms·

I never understood why Google doesn't hire B teams to do the maintenance work, or outsource it. It's normal that if you hire only top players that no one wants

I never understood why Google doesn't hire B teams to do the maintenance work, or outsource it. It's normal that if you hire only top players that no one wants to be stuck doing tickets.

scarface74 4y ago
It’s not about hiring top players. It’s about the incentive structure of getting ahead. From all of the leveling guidelines I’ve seen at major tech companies, “coding quality” only comes into play to differentiate an entry level dev to a mid level dev. I can’t think of any good measurable incentives that Google could use,
- mft_ 4y ago
  Rational beings typically act according to the incentives they are provided, so if coders don't want to work on Reader for this reason, and management don't want to keep it around, it does point to the incentive structure being part of the problem. But it therefore follows that many of Google's bad decisions could be partly traced back to how the company is organised - probably the interlinked combination of the incentive structure, and success metrics. What's interesting is that even the most biased insider must see that Google really sucks in some domains - and recognising (and/or generating) user value seems to be one of them. Several times, they've either spent big on products which just missed the mark from day one (Plus/Currents, Stadia, multiple text/chat apps), or killed products which already had major engagement (Reader, Inbox, Orkut). What's interesting is that if they made user engagement the only major metric that mattered and incentivised accordingly, it would likely drive interesting behaviour - a real focus on user needs, iteration to optimise engagement in the longer term, improvements in customer service, etc.
izacus 4y ago
Why would Google (or any company) _pay_ for outsourced teams to maintain a declining unprofitable product? Would __your__ company ever do that?
- raizer88 4y ago
  Because if the product is not in red (pretty sure Google Reader was in green), closing it burn user trust. I know about opportunity costs, but I'm not sure Google is in a position where it bleeds money so bad that need to rationalize things. And having one more product helps you synergize strategies across the board.
  - throwwwaway69 4y ago
    >closing it burn user trust 99.9% of Google users are completely unaware of their reputation around closing down products. Closing Google reader a decade ago is a cause that nerds like us on HN care about, but virtually no one else. And the same nerds like us also care enough about our online presence to not use Google products for a hundred other reasons anyway
- jimnotgym 4y ago
  It depends on how you measure profit. Does gmail make a profit? Does search make a profit? Neither of them are paid services, but they allow a huge advertising business to be built on top. Reader could have been the same
Kye 4y ago
Whoever's maintaining and updating Blogger should be involved in picking that team. People keep declaring it dead, and they keep putting out major improvements and modernizations at least every few years. https://blogger.googleblog.com/ https://blogger.googleblog.com/ The last update is May 2020 after at least one a year for 15 years, so it may not be long for this world.

I never understood why Google doesn't hire B teams to do the maintenance work, or outsource it. It's normal that if you hire only top players that no one wants to be stuck doing tickets.

scarface74 4y ago

It’s not about hiring top players. It’s about the incentive structure of getting ahead. From all of the leveling guidelines I’ve seen at major tech companies, “coding quality” only comes into play to differentiate an entry level dev to a mid level dev. I can’t think of any good measurable incentives that Google could use,

mft_ 4y ago
Rational beings typically act according to the incentives they are provided, so if coders don't want to work on Reader for this reason, and management don't want to keep it around, it does point to the incentive structure being part of the problem. But it therefore follows that many of Google's bad decisions could be partly traced back to how the company is organised - probably the interlinked combination of the incentive structure, and success metrics. What's interesting is that even the most biased insider must see that Google really sucks in some domains - and recognising (and/or generating) user value seems to be one of them. Several times, they've either spent big on products which just missed the mark from day one (Plus/Currents, Stadia, multiple text/chat apps), or killed products which already had major engagement (Reader, Inbox, Orkut). What's interesting is that if they made user engagement the only major metric that mattered and incentivised accordingly, it would likely drive interesting behaviour - a real focus on user needs, iteration to optimise engagement in the longer term, improvements in customer service, etc.

izacus 4y ago

Why would Google (or any company) _pay_ for outsourced teams to maintain a declining unprofitable product? Would __your__ company ever do that?

raizer88 4y ago
Because if the product is not in red (pretty sure Google Reader was in green), closing it burn user trust. I know about opportunity costs, but I'm not sure Google is in a position where it bleeds money so bad that need to rationalize things. And having one more product helps you synergize strategies across the board.
- throwwwaway69 4y ago
  >closing it burn user trust 99.9% of Google users are completely unaware of their reputation around closing down products. Closing Google reader a decade ago is a cause that nerds like us on HN care about, but virtually no one else. And the same nerds like us also care enough about our online presence to not use Google products for a hundred other reasons anyway
jimnotgym 4y ago
It depends on how you measure profit. Does gmail make a profit? Does search make a profit? Neither of them are paid services, but they allow a huge advertising business to be built on top. Reader could have been the same

Kye 4y ago

Whoever's maintaining and updating Blogger should be involved in picking that team. People keep declaring it dead, and they keep putting out major improvements and modernizations at least every few years. https://blogger.googleblog.com/ https://blogger.googleblog.com/ The last update is May 2020 after at least one a year for 15 years, so it may not be long for this world.