5 ms·

I mean that incubator was a total waste of money. No one did anything, everyone was a bser from the top, and 95% of the projects were total failures. I think th

by teen 3y ago

I mean that incubator was a total waste of money. No one did anything, everyone was a bser from the top, and 95% of the projects were total failures. I think there were maybe 3 "successful" projects.

compiler-guy 3y ago
Pretty standard rate of failure for early stage startups.
121789 3y ago
I think this is why these teams are really hard to have in a mature org. In reality maybe 5% of projects in one of these innovation orgs is actually great! But it’s impossible to evaluate and everyone else is thinking some variant of “this team is able to bs and show no value, while I have to hit real goals or risk being fired?” I think the incentives would have to be much different for it to work (e.g. much lower base pay + higher rewards for success)…..but at that point just join a startup
- seraphsf 3y ago
  Which 5% of projects are really great? In my experience, presuming you have tight filters such that all of your projects are plausibly potentially great, you really don’t know until you try. That’s the point of an incubator. It’s not that hard to evaluate when something is working (ie the hard part in evaluation is false negatives, not false positives). In Area 120’s case there was no coasting - if anything there was a hair-trigger standard to shut down underperforming projects.
mk89 3y ago
3 successful projects can totally justify what you call waste of money. I sometimes wonder what people expect innovation is. You try and try and try. One thing is good and you must know how to use it - it can make history. If I understood right, chatgpt comes from one of such ideas.... so the question is also: who evaluates the ideas? How come that Google was not able to capitalize on that idea? So yeah, instead of treating the cause they treat the symptoms, like usual.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- lapphi 3y ago
  Agreed, we are on ycombinator.com, after all. The patron saint of failed ideas.
gedy 3y ago
I think these type of teams are a good way to give talented devs a break from the grind at bigger companies, even if the chances of a new product is low. Not every company can afford these "paid vacations", but they do have some use at times.
seraphsf 3y ago
I ran one of the successful projects in Area 120. I joined Area 120 with huge skepticism. It was hamstrung and inefficient in its own ways. And I agree it didn’t reach its potential - largely because it was encased in Google 2020 instead of Google 2007. But to my surprise almost all of the projects were impressive, well-conceived, promising bets. And the people in Area 120 were among the top 10% of Googlers I worked with in my decade at the company. Google killed Area 120 because of bureaucracy and politics, full stop. Google is worse off because of it.
- jklm 3y ago
  Somewhat spicy take - if the people in Area 120 were among the top 10% of Googlers you worked with, they probably weren't the right builders to start a new vertical. Most of what makes people effective at large companies is neutral or negative value when applied to very early-stage companies.
  - tomrod 3y ago
    That assertion applies to the middle 80%, IME. The top 10% are the people you can drop on to any project of any size and any org structure and they adapt quickly and deliver. They adapt themselves accordingly.
    - aleph_minus_one 3y ago
      > That assertion applies to the middle 80%, IME. The top 10% are the people you can drop on to any project of any size and any org structure and they adapt quickly and deliver. They adapt themselves accordingly. These are rather the top 10 % sycophants, not the top 10 % researchers or top 10 % programmers.
      - tomrod 3y ago
        I didn't see that mentioned, perhaps I missed it. I read it as top 10% of performers.
  - 3y ago

by teen 3y ago

I mean that incubator was a total waste of money. No one did anything, everyone was a bser from the top, and 95% of the projects were total failures. I think there were maybe 3 "successful" projects.

compiler-guy 3y ago

Pretty standard rate of failure for early stage startups.

121789 3y ago

I think this is why these teams are really hard to have in a mature org. In reality maybe 5% of projects in one of these innovation orgs is actually great! But it’s impossible to evaluate and everyone else is thinking some variant of “this team is able to bs and show no value, while I have to hit real goals or risk being fired?” I think the incentives would have to be much different for it to work (e.g. much lower base pay + higher rewards for success)…..but at that point just join a startup

seraphsf 3y ago
Which 5% of projects are really great? In my experience, presuming you have tight filters such that all of your projects are plausibly potentially great, you really don’t know until you try. That’s the point of an incubator. It’s not that hard to evaluate when something is working (ie the hard part in evaluation is false negatives, not false positives). In Area 120’s case there was no coasting - if anything there was a hair-trigger standard to shut down underperforming projects.

mk89 3y ago

3 successful projects can totally justify what you call waste of money. I sometimes wonder what people expect innovation is. You try and try and try. One thing is good and you must know how to use it - it can make history. If I understood right, chatgpt comes from one of such ideas.... so the question is also: who evaluates the ideas? How come that Google was not able to capitalize on that idea? So yeah, instead of treating the cause they treat the symptoms, like usual.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
lapphi 3y ago
Agreed, we are on ycombinator.com, after all. The patron saint of failed ideas.

gedy 3y ago

I think these type of teams are a good way to give talented devs a break from the grind at bigger companies, even if the chances of a new product is low. Not every company can afford these "paid vacations", but they do have some use at times.

seraphsf 3y ago

I ran one of the successful projects in Area 120. I joined Area 120 with huge skepticism. It was hamstrung and inefficient in its own ways. And I agree it didn’t reach its potential - largely because it was encased in Google 2020 instead of Google 2007. But to my surprise almost all of the projects were impressive, well-conceived, promising bets. And the people in Area 120 were among the top 10% of Googlers I worked with in my decade at the company. Google killed Area 120 because of bureaucracy and politics, full stop. Google is worse off because of it.

jklm 3y ago
Somewhat spicy take - if the people in Area 120 were among the top 10% of Googlers you worked with, they probably weren't the right builders to start a new vertical. Most of what makes people effective at large companies is neutral or negative value when applied to very early-stage companies.
- tomrod 3y ago
  That assertion applies to the middle 80%, IME. The top 10% are the people you can drop on to any project of any size and any org structure and they adapt quickly and deliver. They adapt themselves accordingly.
  - aleph_minus_one 3y ago
    > That assertion applies to the middle 80%, IME. The top 10% are the people you can drop on to any project of any size and any org structure and they adapt quickly and deliver. They adapt themselves accordingly. These are rather the top 10 % sycophants, not the top 10 % researchers or top 10 % programmers.
    - tomrod 3y ago
      I didn't see that mentioned, perhaps I missed it. I read it as top 10% of performers.
- 3y ago