5 ms·

Google X is a failed experiment. Waymo is the only worthwhile thing they ever did and it predates X (as Chauffeur). Just look at their "Projects" page here: ht

Google X is a failed experiment. Waymo is the only worthwhile thing they ever did and it predates X (as Chauffeur). Just look at their "Projects" page here: https://x.company/projects/ https://x.company/projects/ Still touting public failures like Everyday Robots, Loon, Glass, Makani, now Mineral. Fail fast shouldn't mean fail always...

hiddencost 2y ago
POSIWID? A lot of projects like X were really about keeping people off the job market. edit: or they were about finding a way to marginalize competitors for senior roles. Give them a cushy job that plays to their ego, so they don't fight you for the key positions of power in the company.
- 0xB31B1B 2y ago
  or option 3: it was a way for senior execs at google to hire their friends from stanford.
  - otabdeveloper4 2y ago
    Spoiler: all three options are actually the same option.
  - Ekaros 2y ago
    option 4, standard empire building and appearing to be doing something...
croes 2y ago
Confusing that there are X and X. x.company and x.com. Seems creativity and memorizable branding isn't a thing anymore.
- moralestapia 2y ago
  I could never, ever, confuse "X the messaging service/social network" with "X the experimental Google incubator". And I guess US trademark law agrees with me since they're both operating without hiccups.
  - croes 2y ago
    You do realize that X isn't just meant to be Twitter. Have you heard about X's new AI project?
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      While Musk named the new company X, it looks to me like it's barely related to twitter-X.
      - moralestapia 2y ago
        As of this moment in time, X is primarily a social networking site.
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        I'm agreeing with you but going even further. X-nee-twitter is not only primarily a social media site, that AI is not part of it. Musk touching something doesn't make it a part of that X, and if he names a dozen irrelevant startups 'X' that's not enough to change anything.
      - croes 2y ago
        Who said I meant Musk's X?
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        Because you defined the X you were talking about as not "just" Twitter, so it must be the one that includes Twitter. And you already made it clear you're not going for some kind of "all X go together" claim because you said there are different Xs. Oh, wait, are you implying you switched X between sentences without saying so? That would just be bad communication on your end.
- mirekrusin 2y ago
  Microsoft should launch x project as well. We'd have XXX.
  - rkachowski 2y ago
    perhaps some kind of x-box
    - mirekrusin 2y ago
      there you go, thank you
- dartos 2y ago
  When you’re so big that society warps around you, you don’t need the branding as much.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
gajnadsgjoas 2y ago
They aim for moonshots, even if one works (waymo, verily) it will be worth to run. Better spend ad money on this than on stock buybacks
- 0xB31B1B 2y ago
  They criticism of x labs is not that they were insufficiently ambitious, its that they don't execute to achieve moonshots, they play the game to lose. Even if they had a good idea, they would not be able to take it to market, it was all a waste.
- modeless 2y ago
  Stock buyback money goes to investors who can reallocate it to companies actually providing value to customers instead of wasting it on boondoggles. Waymo hasn't succeeded yet. Their excessively slow scaling may yet be their downfall. And again, the project predates X. It's more like X came out of Waymo than the other way around.
- kimixa 2y ago
  And not everything it gives is easy to see on the bottom line. I know of some great people (like "Best In Their Field" great) attracted to google to work on X projects. Then while they're there, they may as well spread some of their knowledge to other google projects. Or the tech developed there failed as a standalone product, but the knowledge gained folded in to another project. Even if every "moonshot" project failed, it may have given benefits to the company as a whole. Though at some point I do wonder if the intent of google X projects is to fail as a standalone product, and just be folded into more core projects....
- michaelt 2y ago
  Is "AI-fuelled smart agriculture" a "moonshot" at this point? I thought there were several companies selling fully working systems for camera-targeted weed/fertiliser spraying, right now? Including John Deere? And Trimble and others have things like precision GPS auto-steer for tractors for over a decade? Seems to me Google has unlimited ad money, so people working there can make the big bucks without needing to deliver sales or profits or build a sales/dealer/repair network or set up a farm equipment manufacturing operation or anything else they don't feel like doing.
0xB31B1B 2y ago
google X was basically hiring standford ingroup folks from the D school and other PHD programs and giving them a lot of funding with zero accountability.
onion2k 2y ago
Fail fast shouldn't mean fail always... 'Fail' in this context mostly means 'choose to use resources to do other things'. Alphabet has certainly learned a huge amount from all of these ventures, and that doesn't go away if they close them down. There'll be people at Alphabet looking for uses of what came out of these companies in the future. The point of Google X was to try projects that had very little chance of success but that would have been world-changing if they pulled it off. The probability of 'fail always' was always quite high. The same lesson applies to everyone. Your startup might fail but you take the learning and experience with you, and use it to do other things in the future. When you're setting goals there should be a reasonably high probability of failing because otherwise you're just not aiming high enough.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > There'll be people at Alphabet looking for uses of what came out of these companies in the future Do you have any evidence for this? Because at a certain point, the framework almost defines failure out of existence. Which is very much in line with X’s philosophy.
- modeless 2y ago
  > Alphabet has certainly learned a huge amount from all of these ventures, and that doesn't go away if they close them down. This is a fantasy, and I know first hand. I worked for a startup that was acquired by Google. They shut us down after a year. I am here to tell you that they "learned" absolutely nothing. The archived technology was never touched. Years later there were multiple teams doing stuff redundant to what we did. They didn't know we ever existed and their projects will probably never be released.
  - erickj 2y ago
    > The archived technology was never touched. Years later there were multiple teams doing stuff redundant to what we did. They didn't know we ever existed and their projects will probably never be released. I've worked there for 12 years and this is 100% accurate. It's all one big director and vp level circle jerk.
_xivi 2y ago
> Google X is a failure. Waymo is the only worthwhile thing they ever did and it predates X (as Chauffeur). A failure in what sense? It's their research arm. It feels crazy to bash down what they're doing even if it led nowhere. I'd prefer the money goes toward funding "failed research" than sit in their bank accounts. Do you feel the same way about NASA, CERN, scientific research in general? There are many areas that receive significant funding for decades and lead nowhere by the looks of it.
- modeless 2y ago
  I don't feel that way about the part of NASA that awarded contracts to SpaceX, but I do feel that way about the part of NASA that wastes billions on SLS (I know it's Congress's fault). It's about efficiency. Even for research that doesn't make revenue, you can do it efficiently or inefficiently. SLS and Google X are way down on the inefficient end of the spectrum.
  - _xivi 2y ago
    What are you expectations of Google X based on? in other words, what are you measuring against? Are there similar research ventures pursuing moonshots that are doing better? Your comment was pretty harsh. Google X has been around for what? only 14 years? The number of projects they funded and the researchers they employed during that time frame is great initiative and admirable on its own.
  - 1992spacemovie 2y ago
    The criticism of SLS is beat to death. The reason it exists is to ensure a viable alternative launch vehicle to space and beyond. It’s good to have redundancy in certain things. The USG has determined space access is one of them. Yeah it costs more. But it costs less than if you ever needed it suddenly and it didn’t exist.
- bobthepanda 2y ago
  The question is whether or not Google, either in its bank accounts or as X, is the best steward for funding innovation. One could argue that it isn’t, and they should’ve paid that cash out in dividends and leave their shareholders to do such work.
PostOnce 2y ago
The Waymo that drives on the wrong side of the road in broad daylight on a clear day? Https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/1dvsod6/phoenix_police_officer_pulls_over_a_driverless/
- morsch 2y ago
  That is a remarkably different dynamic than a cop pulling over a human.
  - modeless 2y ago
    "This call may be recorded for quality assurance" at a traffic stop feels like something from Idiocracy.
- dageshi 2y ago
  Sometimes humans knowingly drink and drive into oncoming traffic... What's your point?
  - PostOnce 2y ago
    My point is that Waymo isn't a good example of Google's success considering that after decades of development it still can't drive on the right side of the road in broad daylight on a clear day.
    - dageshi 2y ago
      Which is no different to a whole host of bad human driving as well. Mistakes are inevitable in something like driving, they happen to even the best human drivers. All that matters is that over time the self driving mistakes decrease to the point they are far below the human average. I don't see the point of picking one example of a mistake and pretending it's indicative of a failing endeavour when literally no other company is even close to what Waymo is doing right now.
      - 2y ago
insane_dreamer 2y ago
I think the point of moonshots is that most are expected to fail. But the technology that is developed in many cases lives in, just not necessarily in the form of a standalone company. I see that as a good thing. I'd much rather Google pour $ billions of its profit into moonshot R&D than simply returning it to shareholders or growing its ad business.
killerstorm 2y ago
More than 90% of statups fail. Why do you expect better lower failure rate for *moonshots* than for startups? That's entirely unreasonable. It's very interesting that you're focusing on failures rather than on graduated projects. Do you really expect 100% success rate for moonshots? It might actually be hard to estimate success rate as best ideas got absorbed into Google itself. E.g. Google Brain originated at X. Wikipedia has other examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Development#Others https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Development#Others

hiddencost 2y ago

POSIWID? A lot of projects like X were really about keeping people off the job market. edit: or they were about finding a way to marginalize competitors for senior roles. Give them a cushy job that plays to their ego, so they don't fight you for the key positions of power in the company.

0xB31B1B 2y ago
or option 3: it was a way for senior execs at google to hire their friends from stanford.
- otabdeveloper4 2y ago
  Spoiler: all three options are actually the same option.
- Ekaros 2y ago
  option 4, standard empire building and appearing to be doing something...

croes 2y ago

Confusing that there are X and X. x.company and x.com. Seems creativity and memorizable branding isn't a thing anymore.

moralestapia 2y ago
I could never, ever, confuse "X the messaging service/social network" with "X the experimental Google incubator". And I guess US trademark law agrees with me since they're both operating without hiccups.
- croes 2y ago
  You do realize that X isn't just meant to be Twitter. Have you heard about X's new AI project?
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    While Musk named the new company X, it looks to me like it's barely related to twitter-X.
    - moralestapia 2y ago
      As of this moment in time, X is primarily a social networking site.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        I'm agreeing with you but going even further. X-nee-twitter is not only primarily a social media site, that AI is not part of it. Musk touching something doesn't make it a part of that X, and if he names a dozen irrelevant startups 'X' that's not enough to change anything.
    - croes 2y ago
      Who said I meant Musk's X?
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        Because you defined the X you were talking about as not "just" Twitter, so it must be the one that includes Twitter. And you already made it clear you're not going for some kind of "all X go together" claim because you said there are different Xs. Oh, wait, are you implying you switched X between sentences without saying so? That would just be bad communication on your end.
mirekrusin 2y ago
Microsoft should launch x project as well. We'd have XXX.
- rkachowski 2y ago
  perhaps some kind of x-box
  - mirekrusin 2y ago
    there you go, thank you
dartos 2y ago
When you’re so big that society warps around you, you don’t need the branding as much.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

gajnadsgjoas 2y ago

They aim for moonshots, even if one works (waymo, verily) it will be worth to run. Better spend ad money on this than on stock buybacks

0xB31B1B 2y ago
They criticism of x labs is not that they were insufficiently ambitious, its that they don't execute to achieve moonshots, they play the game to lose. Even if they had a good idea, they would not be able to take it to market, it was all a waste.
modeless 2y ago
Stock buyback money goes to investors who can reallocate it to companies actually providing value to customers instead of wasting it on boondoggles. Waymo hasn't succeeded yet. Their excessively slow scaling may yet be their downfall. And again, the project predates X. It's more like X came out of Waymo than the other way around.
kimixa 2y ago
And not everything it gives is easy to see on the bottom line. I know of some great people (like "Best In Their Field" great) attracted to google to work on X projects. Then while they're there, they may as well spread some of their knowledge to other google projects. Or the tech developed there failed as a standalone product, but the knowledge gained folded in to another project. Even if every "moonshot" project failed, it may have given benefits to the company as a whole. Though at some point I do wonder if the intent of google X projects is to fail as a standalone product, and just be folded into more core projects....
michaelt 2y ago
Is "AI-fuelled smart agriculture" a "moonshot" at this point? I thought there were several companies selling fully working systems for camera-targeted weed/fertiliser spraying, right now? Including John Deere? And Trimble and others have things like precision GPS auto-steer for tractors for over a decade? Seems to me Google has unlimited ad money, so people working there can make the big bucks without needing to deliver sales or profits or build a sales/dealer/repair network or set up a farm equipment manufacturing operation or anything else they don't feel like doing.

0xB31B1B 2y ago

google X was basically hiring standford ingroup folks from the D school and other PHD programs and giving them a lot of funding with zero accountability.

onion2k 2y ago

Fail fast shouldn't mean fail always... 'Fail' in this context mostly means 'choose to use resources to do other things'. Alphabet has certainly learned a huge amount from all of these ventures, and that doesn't go away if they close them down. There'll be people at Alphabet looking for uses of what came out of these companies in the future. The point of Google X was to try projects that had very little chance of success but that would have been world-changing if they pulled it off. The probability of 'fail always' was always quite high. The same lesson applies to everyone. Your startup might fail but you take the learning and experience with you, and use it to do other things in the future. When you're setting goals there should be a reasonably high probability of failing because otherwise you're just not aiming high enough.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> There'll be people at Alphabet looking for uses of what came out of these companies in the future Do you have any evidence for this? Because at a certain point, the framework almost defines failure out of existence. Which is very much in line with X’s philosophy.
modeless 2y ago
> Alphabet has certainly learned a huge amount from all of these ventures, and that doesn't go away if they close them down. This is a fantasy, and I know first hand. I worked for a startup that was acquired by Google. They shut us down after a year. I am here to tell you that they "learned" absolutely nothing. The archived technology was never touched. Years later there were multiple teams doing stuff redundant to what we did. They didn't know we ever existed and their projects will probably never be released.
- erickj 2y ago
  > The archived technology was never touched. Years later there were multiple teams doing stuff redundant to what we did. They didn't know we ever existed and their projects will probably never be released. I've worked there for 12 years and this is 100% accurate. It's all one big director and vp level circle jerk.

_xivi 2y ago

> Google X is a failure. Waymo is the only worthwhile thing they ever did and it predates X (as Chauffeur). A failure in what sense? It's their research arm. It feels crazy to bash down what they're doing even if it led nowhere. I'd prefer the money goes toward funding "failed research" than sit in their bank accounts. Do you feel the same way about NASA, CERN, scientific research in general? There are many areas that receive significant funding for decades and lead nowhere by the looks of it.

modeless 2y ago
I don't feel that way about the part of NASA that awarded contracts to SpaceX, but I do feel that way about the part of NASA that wastes billions on SLS (I know it's Congress's fault). It's about efficiency. Even for research that doesn't make revenue, you can do it efficiently or inefficiently. SLS and Google X are way down on the inefficient end of the spectrum.
- _xivi 2y ago
  What are you expectations of Google X based on? in other words, what are you measuring against? Are there similar research ventures pursuing moonshots that are doing better? Your comment was pretty harsh. Google X has been around for what? only 14 years? The number of projects they funded and the researchers they employed during that time frame is great initiative and admirable on its own.
- 1992spacemovie 2y ago
  The criticism of SLS is beat to death. The reason it exists is to ensure a viable alternative launch vehicle to space and beyond. It’s good to have redundancy in certain things. The USG has determined space access is one of them. Yeah it costs more. But it costs less than if you ever needed it suddenly and it didn’t exist.
bobthepanda 2y ago
The question is whether or not Google, either in its bank accounts or as X, is the best steward for funding innovation. One could argue that it isn’t, and they should’ve paid that cash out in dividends and leave their shareholders to do such work.

PostOnce 2y ago

The Waymo that drives on the wrong side of the road in broad daylight on a clear day? Https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/1dvsod6/phoenix_police_officer_pulls_over_a_driverless/

morsch 2y ago
That is a remarkably different dynamic than a cop pulling over a human.
- modeless 2y ago
  "This call may be recorded for quality assurance" at a traffic stop feels like something from Idiocracy.
dageshi 2y ago
Sometimes humans knowingly drink and drive into oncoming traffic... What's your point?
- PostOnce 2y ago
  My point is that Waymo isn't a good example of Google's success considering that after decades of development it still can't drive on the right side of the road in broad daylight on a clear day.
  - dageshi 2y ago
    Which is no different to a whole host of bad human driving as well. Mistakes are inevitable in something like driving, they happen to even the best human drivers. All that matters is that over time the self driving mistakes decrease to the point they are far below the human average. I don't see the point of picking one example of a mistake and pretending it's indicative of a failing endeavour when literally no other company is even close to what Waymo is doing right now.
    - 2y ago

insane_dreamer 2y ago

I think the point of moonshots is that most are expected to fail. But the technology that is developed in many cases lives in, just not necessarily in the form of a standalone company. I see that as a good thing. I'd much rather Google pour $ billions of its profit into moonshot R&D than simply returning it to shareholders or growing its ad business.

killerstorm 2y ago

More than 90% of statups fail. Why do you expect better lower failure rate for *moonshots* than for startups? That's entirely unreasonable. It's very interesting that you're focusing on failures rather than on graduated projects. Do you really expect 100% success rate for moonshots? It might actually be hard to estimate success rate as best ideas got absorbed into Google itself. E.g. Google Brain originated at X. Wikipedia has other examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Development#Others https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Development#Others