6 ms·

On one hand, I agree with you, on the other, as a former Googler I think that "just needs better coaching" is a huge barrier in Google's current corporate cultu

On one hand, I agree with you, on the other, as a former Googler I think that "just needs better coaching" is a huge barrier in Google's current corporate culture and environment. Google as a whole has a long history of not being able to successfully build great products out of great tech. That seems wrong from looking at search, Gmail, Maps*, Docs*, etc., but I think these are cases where a single great insight or innovation so dominated the rest of the product qualities that it made the product successful on it's own (PageRank, AJAX, realtime collaboration). There have been so many other cases where this pattern didn't hold, and even though Google had better tech, it wasn't so much better on one axis as to pull the whole product along with it. That's the problem I see here. Maybe they have a better model. Can they make it a better product? OpenAI and Anthropic seem to ship faster, with a clearer vision, and more innovation with features around the model. Is their AI hardware acceleration really going to be a game changer if it's only ever available in-house? I do believe in Waymo, but only because they've been incrementally investing and improving it for 15 years. They need to do that with all products, instead of giving up when they're not an instant hit. *Maps, Docs, and YouTube were acquired with their key advantages in place, so I wonder how much they even count.

causal 2y ago
Yeah and even Gemini only seemed to come about because OpenAI forced their hand and gave them a product vision to follow. If OpenAI didn't exist I bet Google would still be fumbling over how to make a product out of transformers.
- zitterbewegung 2y ago
  Even OpenAI wasn’t going to release ChatGPT because the product internally was that it wasn’t that good but with some obvious internal pressure we are where we are at now.
  - sgerenser 2y ago
    I thought at the time OpenAI were clamoring that they couldn't release it because it was "too dangerous?"
    - optimalsolver 2y ago
      That was GPT-2.
jeffbee 2y ago
Only disagree with the last part of your footnote. YouTube was acquired with an underpants gnomes' business model: spend $$$$ on network traffic; ????; profit! The "key advantage" that enabled YouTube was dirt-cheap global networking. And I think that is the thread that ties together all of Google's products. They are the protobuf moving company, first and foremost. Even on AI one of their key advantages is the ability to reliably and rapidly start training, literally they have blogged about their cutting-edge protobuf tsunami capabilities.
- jhalstead 2y ago
  What are you referring to with this part? > they have blogged about their cutting-edge protobuf tsunami capabilities. Not sure if you recall the blog post url or title, but I'm curious to read more.
  - jeffbee 2y ago
    https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/compute/the-worlds-largest-distributed-llm-training-job-on-tpu-v5e https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/compute/the-worlds-la...
- ra7 2y ago
  > literally they have blogged about their cutting-edge protobuf tsunami capabilities Do you have a link to this?
- nick3443 2y ago
  This is a bad take. The business model is pretty clear: subsidized new line of business using the search revenu until it is so dominant that no competition is viable, only then heavily monetize it.
hlfshell 2y ago
Google is very much suffering from the classic Innovator's Dilemma [1]; a side effect of being too focused on stock price and not long term planning. A better management with long term thinking would utilize Google's enormous base of talented engineers far better. [1]https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=46 https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=46
- zoogeny 2y ago
  On the topic of better management, I can't believe they haven't replaced Sundar Pichai. Satya Nadella by comparison really seemed to have turned MS around. Larry Page was making the rounds when all of this AI hype started. He seemed to have a much more aggressive stance, even ruffling feathers about how many hours Google employees should be working to compete in AI. And there is obviously Demis Hassabis who is the most likely contender for a replacement. I doubt it is an easy position to fill. But Pichai has presided over this lackluster Google. Even if he isn't strictly to blame, I am surprised he hasn't be replaced.
  - hlfshell 2y ago
    Google (Alphabet's) stock price has generally gone up 200% in the past 5 years. That is the only reason he is there, and that is the only way he is judged.
    - zoogeny 2y ago
      Yes, that is fair and probably the accurate assessment. A bit like Tim Cook. He may not be innovative but Apple sure has been profitable. I guess it is easy to view it from my own perspective, one tinged with a hope for invention and innovation. But the market probably loves the financial stability Pichai has brought to the table and doesn't care about the flaws I see. And I 'm not sure why I have rose tinted glasses for Nadella. I believe MS has been doing well financially (not something I've studied) while also supporting things I believe are valuable (e.g. VS Code, GitHub, TypeScript). Maybe I just wish I felt the same kind of balance in Google.
echelon 2y ago
Google needs to be broken up. The DOJ / FTC want to do it. There's far too much value and scale in the company and they can't even focus their energies appropriately. YouTube is the most valuable media property in the world. As a standalone company, it would still outperform Netflix on the basis of ads alone. The monopolistic stuff Google is pulling off with Chrome/Android/Search is unfathomably market distorting, so those business units alone could/should be pulled apart. The tech sector would probably be better off if YouTube, Waymo, and GCP/AI efforts were similarly split up.
- spankalee 2y ago
  Maybe, but IMO the DOJ's current proposal would be harmful for users and the web. Chrome is not worth as much to anyone else what it is to Google. And with Google barred from paying for default search engine placement, all browser investment everywhere will be severely cut back. Mozilla will probably finally fall, Safari will stagnate, and Chrome will rot.
  - 0x457 2y ago
    I don't think anything will impact Safari. Mozilla will be closing doors tho.
    - spankalee 2y ago
      Apple would no longer get $20 billion from Google for default search engine placement. Microsoft... and DDG or Yandex? might pay some, but nothing like that with the biggest bidder off the table. Safari funding would _definitely_ take a huge hit.
      - 0x457 2y ago
        I don't think we know how much google pays for it right now. That 20B figure is from 2022. Also, that payment is mainly for iOS's Safari. Google would still pay Apple for search engine placement on iOS even if Apple stopped updating Safari today. What I'm poorly trying to say: I don't think safari development funding related to how much it brings in. Also there is MS that wants to pay for search engine placement and it's fact.
deepGem 2y ago
Waymo clearly stands out as an exception amongst all moonshots that Google went after. However, they don't seem to have that one axis advantage in Waymo. I can't believe they didn't double, triple down on their efforts to build a fully integrated car. Compared to Apple, they were at a much better position to do this because of all the underlying tech/models and research. May be that's the problem - that there is no one rallying individual for Waymo. They should just spin it off and make it an independent private company and retain % ownership. I somehow feel Google will be way better if it's run like Berkshire, the CEO just focuses on capital allocation and let's the managers do their jobs in their respective companies - YT, Waymo, search, cloud, deepmind. I'm not sure that culture can dissipate in Google at this juncture.
- gowld 2y ago
  Waymo is a "Bet", so it's not managed by anyone in Google except for Alphabet CEO.
- whiplash451 2y ago
  Building their own car was sending the wrong message to the partners they will sell self-driving to. Waymo is all about partnerships with carmakers.
wslh 2y ago
> *Maps, Docs, and YouTube were acquired with their key advantages in place. I don’t think the same logic applies to Google Docs as it does to YouTube. The original companies behind Docs, Sheets, and Slides were practically unknown, and Google deserves credit for their evolution, features, and clear vision. Developing an office suite might be “easier” from a vision standpoint since the category already exists, whereas marketing something like Gemini Robotics is an entirely different challenge. Just my two cents.
dinkumthinkum 2y ago
I think you might be on to something. I heard Google Gemini has a best in class system for depicting historical figures accurately, it is extraordinarily unphased by “modern audience” political bias.

causal 2y ago

Yeah and even Gemini only seemed to come about because OpenAI forced their hand and gave them a product vision to follow. If OpenAI didn't exist I bet Google would still be fumbling over how to make a product out of transformers.

zitterbewegung 2y ago
Even OpenAI wasn’t going to release ChatGPT because the product internally was that it wasn’t that good but with some obvious internal pressure we are where we are at now.
- sgerenser 2y ago
  I thought at the time OpenAI were clamoring that they couldn't release it because it was "too dangerous?"
  - optimalsolver 2y ago
    That was GPT-2.

jeffbee 2y ago

Only disagree with the last part of your footnote. YouTube was acquired with an underpants gnomes' business model: spend $$$$ on network traffic; ????; profit! The "key advantage" that enabled YouTube was dirt-cheap global networking. And I think that is the thread that ties together all of Google's products. They are the protobuf moving company, first and foremost. Even on AI one of their key advantages is the ability to reliably and rapidly start training, literally they have blogged about their cutting-edge protobuf tsunami capabilities.

jhalstead 2y ago
What are you referring to with this part? > they have blogged about their cutting-edge protobuf tsunami capabilities. Not sure if you recall the blog post url or title, but I'm curious to read more.
- jeffbee 2y ago
  https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/compute/the-worlds-largest-distributed-llm-training-job-on-tpu-v5e https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/compute/the-worlds-la...
ra7 2y ago
> literally they have blogged about their cutting-edge protobuf tsunami capabilities Do you have a link to this?
nick3443 2y ago
This is a bad take. The business model is pretty clear: subsidized new line of business using the search revenu until it is so dominant that no competition is viable, only then heavily monetize it.

hlfshell 2y ago

Google is very much suffering from the classic Innovator's Dilemma [1]; a side effect of being too focused on stock price and not long term planning. A better management with long term thinking would utilize Google's enormous base of talented engineers far better. [1]https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=46 https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=46

zoogeny 2y ago
On the topic of better management, I can't believe they haven't replaced Sundar Pichai. Satya Nadella by comparison really seemed to have turned MS around. Larry Page was making the rounds when all of this AI hype started. He seemed to have a much more aggressive stance, even ruffling feathers about how many hours Google employees should be working to compete in AI. And there is obviously Demis Hassabis who is the most likely contender for a replacement. I doubt it is an easy position to fill. But Pichai has presided over this lackluster Google. Even if he isn't strictly to blame, I am surprised he hasn't be replaced.
- hlfshell 2y ago
  Google (Alphabet's) stock price has generally gone up 200% in the past 5 years. That is the only reason he is there, and that is the only way he is judged.
  - zoogeny 2y ago
    Yes, that is fair and probably the accurate assessment. A bit like Tim Cook. He may not be innovative but Apple sure has been profitable. I guess it is easy to view it from my own perspective, one tinged with a hope for invention and innovation. But the market probably loves the financial stability Pichai has brought to the table and doesn't care about the flaws I see. And I 'm not sure why I have rose tinted glasses for Nadella. I believe MS has been doing well financially (not something I've studied) while also supporting things I believe are valuable (e.g. VS Code, GitHub, TypeScript). Maybe I just wish I felt the same kind of balance in Google.

echelon 2y ago

Google needs to be broken up. The DOJ / FTC want to do it. There's far too much value and scale in the company and they can't even focus their energies appropriately. YouTube is the most valuable media property in the world. As a standalone company, it would still outperform Netflix on the basis of ads alone. The monopolistic stuff Google is pulling off with Chrome/Android/Search is unfathomably market distorting, so those business units alone could/should be pulled apart. The tech sector would probably be better off if YouTube, Waymo, and GCP/AI efforts were similarly split up.

spankalee 2y ago
Maybe, but IMO the DOJ's current proposal would be harmful for users and the web. Chrome is not worth as much to anyone else what it is to Google. And with Google barred from paying for default search engine placement, all browser investment everywhere will be severely cut back. Mozilla will probably finally fall, Safari will stagnate, and Chrome will rot.
- 0x457 2y ago
  I don't think anything will impact Safari. Mozilla will be closing doors tho.
  - spankalee 2y ago
    Apple would no longer get $20 billion from Google for default search engine placement. Microsoft... and DDG or Yandex? might pay some, but nothing like that with the biggest bidder off the table. Safari funding would _definitely_ take a huge hit.
    - 0x457 2y ago
      I don't think we know how much google pays for it right now. That 20B figure is from 2022. Also, that payment is mainly for iOS's Safari. Google would still pay Apple for search engine placement on iOS even if Apple stopped updating Safari today. What I'm poorly trying to say: I don't think safari development funding related to how much it brings in. Also there is MS that wants to pay for search engine placement and it's fact.

deepGem 2y ago

Waymo clearly stands out as an exception amongst all moonshots that Google went after. However, they don't seem to have that one axis advantage in Waymo. I can't believe they didn't double, triple down on their efforts to build a fully integrated car. Compared to Apple, they were at a much better position to do this because of all the underlying tech/models and research. May be that's the problem - that there is no one rallying individual for Waymo. They should just spin it off and make it an independent private company and retain % ownership. I somehow feel Google will be way better if it's run like Berkshire, the CEO just focuses on capital allocation and let's the managers do their jobs in their respective companies - YT, Waymo, search, cloud, deepmind. I'm not sure that culture can dissipate in Google at this juncture.

gowld 2y ago
Waymo is a "Bet", so it's not managed by anyone in Google except for Alphabet CEO.
whiplash451 2y ago
Building their own car was sending the wrong message to the partners they will sell self-driving to. Waymo is all about partnerships with carmakers.

wslh 2y ago

> *Maps, Docs, and YouTube were acquired with their key advantages in place. I don’t think the same logic applies to Google Docs as it does to YouTube. The original companies behind Docs, Sheets, and Slides were practically unknown, and Google deserves credit for their evolution, features, and clear vision. Developing an office suite might be “easier” from a vision standpoint since the category already exists, whereas marketing something like Gemini Robotics is an entirely different challenge. Just my two cents.

dinkumthinkum 2y ago

I think you might be on to something. I heard Google Gemini has a best in class system for depicting historical figures accurately, it is extraordinarily unphased by “modern audience” political bias.