3 ms·
I find that writing which speaks of Google as a single "it" misses the mark. I say this because the Googlers who write here show many disparate views and pressu
by onion2k 2y ago
I find that writing which speaks of Google as a single "it" misses the mark. I say this because the Googlers who write here show many disparate views and pressures to deliverable.
That doesn't matter if you're talking about a boolean outcome or the actions of the company as a whole. There could be 50%+1 person on one side of the internal debate and 50%-1 person on the other, and everyone outside of the company would still say "Google" to refer to the collective outcomes and actions of everyone there. The subtleties of what happens behind closed doors doesn't matter.
Individually Googlers are a disparate bunch. Collectively, they are "Google".
- Sakos 2y agoThis is the case for every company, not just Google. I've been the one internally trying to stop us from making a bad decision which ended up being made anyway. I can't distance myself from that. For everybody outside, there's only the company. My dissent as an individual doesn't exist out there.
- asplake 2y agoRight. And Google isn't a democracy either (nor should it be). The numbers on the winning side might be small. But as you say, “it” is what it does.
- lucianbr 2y agoIt might explain an apparently erratic behaviour. Continuously alternating priorities, indecision, that sort of thing. Multiple actions, some aligned with "still promoting Fuchsia", others with "we're abandoning it". The "Stadia isn't going anywhere" announcement weeks before killing it comes to mind.