3 ms·

That was the root of Google's evil, but they would have gotten there anyway. Afaik, it wasn't McDonnell Douglas/Boeing, where DoubleClick executives metastisiz

by ethbr0 3y ago

That was the root of Google's evil, but they would have gotten there anyway. Afaik, it wasn't McDonnell Douglas/Boeing, where DoubleClick executives metastisized their culture in Google. It's just... Google realized it's way more profitable to serve ads to the entire internet than do anything else. Advertising is the black hole at the center of the Google galaxy, and over time all businesses bend towards profit centers. And so absent strong leadership to the contrary, Google has slid inch by inch, small decision by small decision, closer to it.

deelowe 3y ago
Google was never really interested, culturally, in making money. The ads thing sort of happened by accident. Then when double click was acquired, they were quarantined within the company so as not to pollute the real work swes were doing. Eventually, executive changes happened and the board demanded more profit. Ads were easy so they got integrated everywhere instead of burdening the busy engineers with having to figure out how to monetize their products. This led to ads taking over the entire company over time.
- LanceH 3y ago
  > Google was never really interested, culturally, in making money. People find it really easy to say money isn't the important thing when they are rich. But see that wealth challenged and their behavior changes very quickly (with some exceptions, of course). Google may have had ideals, but they were still a company filled with directors and managers and employees who weren't rich (enough) yet. They weren't paid off from the initial rainfall of money. They were going to use all tools at their disposal. It is no surprise it happened, even if the founders weren't too concerned with money (which I don't believe).
  - deelowe 3y ago
    Maybe interested isn't the right term. Profitability was seen as a necessary evil. Something that is required but should more be happen stance... a natural evolution of the real work swes did. What this meant culturally is that Google became a company where technical merit alone is what was rewarded. In my 15+ years of working for the company, not once did I touch a budget. The teams that did handle that sort of stuff were always made to plead their cases to engineering instead of it being the other way around.
    - wahnfrieden 3y ago
      sounds more like a recruiting and management fable than anything material and had idealized views of the direction given to you and your peers. all you've said is you were below level of being exposed to budget.
      - mrguyorama 3y ago
        The first person you lie to is always yourself.
- lesuorac 3y ago
  > The ads thing sort of happened by accident. idk, i've definitely heard from people with low employee ids that larry & sergy had the idea of ads from before day 1. Perhaps they didn't realize how much money it would be but they didn't develop pagerank and spend years _wondering_ how it could be monetized. I think somebody submitted a blog year ago to HN that goes into this. Maybe somebody from doubleclick side that turned down an offer from Larry?

by ethbr0 3y ago

deelowe 3y ago

Google was never really interested, culturally, in making money. The ads thing sort of happened by accident. Then when double click was acquired, they were quarantined within the company so as not to pollute the real work swes were doing. Eventually, executive changes happened and the board demanded more profit. Ads were easy so they got integrated everywhere instead of burdening the busy engineers with having to figure out how to monetize their products. This led to ads taking over the entire company over time.

LanceH 3y ago
> Google was never really interested, culturally, in making money. People find it really easy to say money isn't the important thing when they are rich. But see that wealth challenged and their behavior changes very quickly (with some exceptions, of course). Google may have had ideals, but they were still a company filled with directors and managers and employees who weren't rich (enough) yet. They weren't paid off from the initial rainfall of money. They were going to use all tools at their disposal. It is no surprise it happened, even if the founders weren't too concerned with money (which I don't believe).
- deelowe 3y ago
  Maybe interested isn't the right term. Profitability was seen as a necessary evil. Something that is required but should more be happen stance... a natural evolution of the real work swes did. What this meant culturally is that Google became a company where technical merit alone is what was rewarded. In my 15+ years of working for the company, not once did I touch a budget. The teams that did handle that sort of stuff were always made to plead their cases to engineering instead of it being the other way around.
  - wahnfrieden 3y ago
    sounds more like a recruiting and management fable than anything material and had idealized views of the direction given to you and your peers. all you've said is you were below level of being exposed to budget.
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      The first person you lie to is always yourself.
lesuorac 3y ago
> The ads thing sort of happened by accident. idk, i've definitely heard from people with low employee ids that larry & sergy had the idea of ads from before day 1. Perhaps they didn't realize how much money it would be but they didn't develop pagerank and spend years _wondering_ how it could be monetized. I think somebody submitted a blog year ago to HN that goes into this. Maybe somebody from doubleclick side that turned down an offer from Larry?