4 ms·
I think the two viewpoints are compatible. The "PM takeover" was indeed a very distinct event, and the precursor of today's problems. I think the reason that ta
by cousin_it 3y ago
I think the two viewpoints are compatible. The "PM takeover" was indeed a very distinct event, and the precursor of today's problems. I think the reason that takeover was allowed to happen is because engineers-in-charge wasn't bringing enough results, like I said. Maps and Gmail are good success stories but they happened many years earlier.
- rezonant 3y agoYes, but Google as a business felt like they could do no wrong, like they were the best at everything, and failed to see that they threw the baby out with the bathwater while trying to chase product categories that weren't in their DNA.
- cousin_it 3y agoAh, if that's your point then I disagree. There is no "DNA". A big tech company can and should try to do many things in many markets, look at Microsoft. When they started with Basic interpreters, or even when they launched Windows, would you have said that Xbox is in their "DNA"?
- rezonant 3y agoPerhaps DNA is too strong a word, because it would seem to imply that change is impossible. It's more that Google executed the changes badly, after the "PM shift" as we're calling it happened, they continued to fail to see growth in these new markets, and failed to address exactly why that was. Instead they simply got very good at unlaunching their failed products. All the while, the shift in the company began to dull the sharp edge that was their core competency: engineering driven products.
- cousin_it 3y agoYeah, that sounds fair to me. The PM shift didn't really fix the problems it was supposed to fix, and introduced new ones.