5 ms·

> This is enshittification: Surpluses are first directed to users; then, once they're locked in, surpluses go to suppliers; then once they're locked in, the sur

by sturza 3y ago

> This is enshittification: Surpluses are first directed to users; then, once they're locked in, surpluses go to suppliers; then once they're locked in, the surplus is handed to shareholders and the platform becomes a useless pile of shit

tjpnz 3y ago
Same thing's happening to Gmail.
nikanj 3y ago
Usually Google products get cancelled before they become useless piles of shit. Not sure how that's better
cmrdporcupine 3y ago
The reality is that 90% of Google product dysfunction can be explained by the phrase: "shipping the org chart" not by any particular $$-related malice. Inter-product-area rivalries/competitions/dysfunctions. Product manager attention span problems. High ego, high-status engineers with nice new technological hammers (e.g. Flutter, Fuchsia, Dart) that absolutely need to find nails, so go take other people's projects to rewrite. Working in Home / Nest PA was very trying on the patience. They were bad for it, but the problem is endemic to anything user-facing at Google (see also Play Music vs YouTube Music, ChromeOS vs Android, Android Things, etc. etc.)
- ohgodplsno 3y ago
  Yep. People used to make fun of Microsoft for their org chart where devdiv was holding a gun to everyone threatening to set fire to the building if Win32 was ever touched, but at least it was between massive orgs within a single massive org. Google has a bunch of managers all vying to get their own promotions and will not hesitate to fuck over both users and other teams just for their moment of glory at Google I/O. And all of this stems from the fact that there's no leadership at Google, with an absolute inability to rally troops together on a single, common goal.
  - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
    The problem at its root is despite this stuff being the major external public appearance of Google, it is in fact all just a side show to the real Google -- which is all data centre hosted core services stuff doing ads, search, etc. Behind all that stuff is an incredibly competent smart SRE team keeping the lights on and keeping things very efficient and reliable. And some boring but diligent SWEs writing the rather boring code to do all that boring stuff. That's what the real Google is, but it's invisible to the public. But all that ads money needs to be spent somewhere. And you can't grow your staff forever doing "boring" stuff. And if there's an exciting interesting project inside Google it's flies to shit, people stepping over each other for promotion.
    - BlueTemplar 3y ago
      It's indirectly noticeable by YouTube not having gone out of business despite a free model with high costs. Note also how its biggest competitor, Twitch, is owned by another data center giant : Amazon (AWS).
      - mschuster91 3y ago
        The only way YouTube and Twitch can stay in business is because their respective owners have the scale to demand massive, massive peering discounts from "last-mile" ISPs and, at least in the case of Google, can avoid middle men on the intercontinental fiber links as they simply have their own cables where they don't need to pay rents to anyone.
      - pas 3y ago
        YouTube has a lot of ads nowadays. Of course it can do that because it's in a quasi-monopolistic position, which is a direct result of Google cross-financing it from search ads revenue. (Similarly how Chrome got into its own position.)
  - lynx23 3y ago
    Since I read about Amanda Rosenberg, I am not surprised anymore. Actually, I am glad YouTube is the only Google product that I am using.
- achow 3y ago
  > "shipping the org chart" It is science :-) Conway's law: ..complex products end up "shaped like" the organizational structure they are designed in or designed for. The law is applied primarily in the field of software architecture, though Conway directed it more broadly and its assumptions and conclusions apply to most technical fields. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law
  - pas 3y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IUj1EZwpJY&t=34m12s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IUj1EZwpJY&t=34m12s (one of the best illustrations, using Windows volume control components)
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    All the Conway's law says is that it's a top management failure.
- m463 3y ago
  Friends who worked for google seemed to be rewarded for new groundbreaking stuff, but were penalized for maintenance or saving money or anything having to do with the present. but "shipping the org chart" really explains a lot of tech good and bad. When sj was at apple, product was well-integrated software and hardware (as he ruled the org chart, which left no space for rivalries and fiefdoms) with every sh*tty iot device that phones home, marketing in the org chart makes for a monetized, not-private mess for customers.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - ethbr0 3y ago
    It seemed like Jobs at Apple and Gates at Microsoft avoided a huge amount of organizational bullshit via a technical fleet-in-being doctrine. [0] Even if their time and attention were finite, they inspired a credible worry throughout the company that they might suprisingly appear and demand answers on why a team is @$&@ing up tech / UX, as PMs/VPs rightly asked themselves "Do I want to be explaining my behavior to X?" Which seemed to tamp down on the amount of inter-fiefdom rivalries and wasted time. I don't get the impression many people are worried about Pichai breathing tech/ UX fire from on high in the same way. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_in_being https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_in_being
    - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
      I think it's that what Microsoft had in the 90s and what Apple had in the 2010s (and to some degree now) was an existential clear mission. Forking off into idiocy was obviously discouraged by leadership but also the profit and survival and success motive was clear: ship improved iPhones and make revenue on them, improve and ship Office or Windows, etc. That's the source of revenue, that's the clear mission. Google's consumer products lack that. Google has an ad machine that just produces seemingly infinite cash. The hardware and consumer facing stuff is a sideshow. So it escapes project discipline.
      - 3y ago
- toss1 3y ago
  Sounds reasonably accurate. And what is obviously missing from this scenario is anyone in the Google organization that has the slightest care or concern for any customer need. Also strongly correlates with their obvious zero customer support / you-re-on-your-own practices. The entire company is just "what can we foist off on them this week?".
pimlottc 3y ago
Where is this quote from? It's not in the article.
- chrisbolt 3y ago
  This recent article by Cory Doctorow: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35863876 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35863876

by sturza 3y ago

tjpnz 3y ago

Same thing's happening to Gmail.

nikanj 3y ago

Usually Google products get cancelled before they become useless piles of shit. Not sure how that's better

cmrdporcupine 3y ago

The reality is that 90% of Google product dysfunction can be explained by the phrase: "shipping the org chart" not by any particular $$-related malice. Inter-product-area rivalries/competitions/dysfunctions. Product manager attention span problems. High ego, high-status engineers with nice new technological hammers (e.g. Flutter, Fuchsia, Dart) that absolutely need to find nails, so go take other people's projects to rewrite. Working in Home / Nest PA was very trying on the patience. They were bad for it, but the problem is endemic to anything user-facing at Google (see also Play Music vs YouTube Music, ChromeOS vs Android, Android Things, etc. etc.)

ohgodplsno 3y ago
Yep. People used to make fun of Microsoft for their org chart where devdiv was holding a gun to everyone threatening to set fire to the building if Win32 was ever touched, but at least it was between massive orgs within a single massive org. Google has a bunch of managers all vying to get their own promotions and will not hesitate to fuck over both users and other teams just for their moment of glory at Google I/O. And all of this stems from the fact that there's no leadership at Google, with an absolute inability to rally troops together on a single, common goal.
- cmrdporcupine 3y ago
  The problem at its root is despite this stuff being the major external public appearance of Google, it is in fact all just a side show to the real Google -- which is all data centre hosted core services stuff doing ads, search, etc. Behind all that stuff is an incredibly competent smart SRE team keeping the lights on and keeping things very efficient and reliable. And some boring but diligent SWEs writing the rather boring code to do all that boring stuff. That's what the real Google is, but it's invisible to the public. But all that ads money needs to be spent somewhere. And you can't grow your staff forever doing "boring" stuff. And if there's an exciting interesting project inside Google it's flies to shit, people stepping over each other for promotion.
  - BlueTemplar 3y ago
    It's indirectly noticeable by YouTube not having gone out of business despite a free model with high costs. Note also how its biggest competitor, Twitch, is owned by another data center giant : Amazon (AWS).
    - mschuster91 3y ago
      The only way YouTube and Twitch can stay in business is because their respective owners have the scale to demand massive, massive peering discounts from "last-mile" ISPs and, at least in the case of Google, can avoid middle men on the intercontinental fiber links as they simply have their own cables where they don't need to pay rents to anyone.
    - pas 3y ago
      YouTube has a lot of ads nowadays. Of course it can do that because it's in a quasi-monopolistic position, which is a direct result of Google cross-financing it from search ads revenue. (Similarly how Chrome got into its own position.)
- lynx23 3y ago
  Since I read about Amanda Rosenberg, I am not surprised anymore. Actually, I am glad YouTube is the only Google product that I am using.
achow 3y ago
> "shipping the org chart" It is science :-) Conway's law: ..complex products end up "shaped like" the organizational structure they are designed in or designed for. The law is applied primarily in the field of software architecture, though Conway directed it more broadly and its assumptions and conclusions apply to most technical fields. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law
- pas 3y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IUj1EZwpJY&t=34m12s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IUj1EZwpJY&t=34m12s (one of the best illustrations, using Windows volume control components)
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  All the Conway's law says is that it's a top management failure.
m463 3y ago
Friends who worked for google seemed to be rewarded for new groundbreaking stuff, but were penalized for maintenance or saving money or anything having to do with the present. but "shipping the org chart" really explains a lot of tech good and bad. When sj was at apple, product was well-integrated software and hardware (as he ruled the org chart, which left no space for rivalries and fiefdoms) with every sh*tty iot device that phones home, marketing in the org chart makes for a monetized, not-private mess for customers.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ethbr0 3y ago
  It seemed like Jobs at Apple and Gates at Microsoft avoided a huge amount of organizational bullshit via a technical fleet-in-being doctrine. [0] Even if their time and attention were finite, they inspired a credible worry throughout the company that they might suprisingly appear and demand answers on why a team is @$&@ing up tech / UX, as PMs/VPs rightly asked themselves "Do I want to be explaining my behavior to X?" Which seemed to tamp down on the amount of inter-fiefdom rivalries and wasted time. I don't get the impression many people are worried about Pichai breathing tech/ UX fire from on high in the same way. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_in_being https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_in_being
  - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
    I think it's that what Microsoft had in the 90s and what Apple had in the 2010s (and to some degree now) was an existential clear mission. Forking off into idiocy was obviously discouraged by leadership but also the profit and survival and success motive was clear: ship improved iPhones and make revenue on them, improve and ship Office or Windows, etc. That's the source of revenue, that's the clear mission. Google's consumer products lack that. Google has an ad machine that just produces seemingly infinite cash. The hardware and consumer facing stuff is a sideshow. So it escapes project discipline.
    - 3y ago
toss1 3y ago
Sounds reasonably accurate. And what is obviously missing from this scenario is anyone in the Google organization that has the slightest care or concern for any customer need. Also strongly correlates with their obvious zero customer support / you-re-on-your-own practices. The entire company is just "what can we foist off on them this week?".

pimlottc 3y ago

Where is this quote from? It's not in the article.

chrisbolt 3y ago
This recent article by Cory Doctorow: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35863876 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35863876