4 ms·

Historically that's was Google's approach, but now it seems like a weird Frankenstein mash of that+strategy. E.g. the topical buying Nest, but then force foldi

by ethbr0 3y ago

Historically that's was Google's approach, but now it seems like a weird Frankenstein mash of that+strategy. E.g. the topical buying Nest, but then force folding it into Google Home That's the opposite of letting the best solution among competing options win. The broader issue is that it doesn't seem like there's a CEO who shows up in the Google Home's team meeting and live demos the broken and missing features, shows them on Nest, and then demands answers for why this wasn't done before they forced migration. As has been quipped on here, Pichai seems to act more like a Google advocate who avoids rocking the internal boat, versus the rabid user advocate that Gates / Jobs / Bezos reportedly were. And when there's no one you're afraid of at the top... of course the organization devolves into petty fiefdoms and bickering, at the expense of users.

crazygringo 3y ago
Yeah, the other downside I should have mentioned is they have no good strategy for what to do when they're left with multiple products after years. They eventually choose to sunset one, and simplify brands, but in a really haphazard, broken-features way, just like we're seeing here. But again, the issue isn't that the CEO's not checking up on the details. It's not one of quality control. It's that they don't care. It's not process, it's goals. I can't imagine Sundar wasn't briefed that the migration will involve missing features, and he signed off on that. Because Google's core values are about trying lots of new things, with a focus on scalability and search and machine learning and metrics. Google's core values are very specifically not about maintaining consistent quality, committing to products, or guaranteeing features -- or being a "user advocate" as you mention. So this is all just to reiterate. These aren't process failures. These are Google's processes working as intended. The Nest failures here are simply a reflection of Google's actual goals.

by ethbr0 3y ago

crazygringo 3y ago

Yeah, the other downside I should have mentioned is they have no good strategy for what to do when they're left with multiple products after years. They eventually choose to sunset one, and simplify brands, but in a really haphazard, broken-features way, just like we're seeing here. But again, the issue isn't that the CEO's not checking up on the details. It's not one of quality control. It's that they don't care. It's not process, it's goals. I can't imagine Sundar wasn't briefed that the migration will involve missing features, and he signed off on that. Because Google's core values are about trying lots of new things, with a focus on scalability and search and machine learning and metrics. Google's core values are very specifically not about maintaining consistent quality, committing to products, or guaranteeing features -- or being a "user advocate" as you mention. So this is all just to reiterate. These aren't process failures. These are Google's processes working as intended. The Nest failures here are simply a reflection of Google's actual goals.