4 ms·

My take is the 2005 google does not and cannot exist again because it was born in an era where the underlying tech became so much more powerful. Any company tha

My take is the 2005 google does not and cannot exist again because it was born in an era where the underlying tech became so much more powerful. Any company that happened to invest creatively in tech during that era became unfathomably wealthy. I joined google in 2022 (and have since left), even as a newcomer it was obvious that not only was the golden era over, but the era after the golden era was winding down too. The atmosphere wasn't "The reckless innovation is over but lets make the product as great as we can" - it was "Just don't break anything and squeeze out 1 or 2% improvements where possible"

monkeyelite 1y ago
> Any company that happened to invest creatively in tech during that era became unfathomably wealthy. Except countless companies did - many went out of business, and few became Googles. The historical context is essential but there are so many factors that set them apart.
- mmx1 1y ago
  Indeed countless companies went under investing in tech, on various iterations of the exact things that later became enormously successful, e.g. iPhone. Success is only guaranteed in retrospect.
  - chuckadams 1y ago
    "The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese."
  - monkeyelite 1y ago
    It’s more than money - you need people making the right technology and product decisions. For smartphones that was clearly the case - not that apple just dumped in more money.
gman83 1y ago
Isn't that a good thing? When millions of people are relying on those products day in and day out, I think we don't want them to be reckless. Leave that to others.
- SlightlyLeftPad 1y ago
  Well, it’s a more nuanced answer. Over time, regularly squeezing 1-2% out of search results in an vastly inferior product which flips from primarily serving its users to serving its payers. Eventually, that will mean certain death as others are willing to take on bigger bolder risks. We have pretty good evidence from other long established companies that this constant pressure to extract money from products is a failing strategy.

monkeyelite 1y ago

> Any company that happened to invest creatively in tech during that era became unfathomably wealthy. Except countless companies did - many went out of business, and few became Googles. The historical context is essential but there are so many factors that set them apart.

mmx1 1y ago
Indeed countless companies went under investing in tech, on various iterations of the exact things that later became enormously successful, e.g. iPhone. Success is only guaranteed in retrospect.
- chuckadams 1y ago
  "The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese."
- monkeyelite 1y ago
  It’s more than money - you need people making the right technology and product decisions. For smartphones that was clearly the case - not that apple just dumped in more money.

gman83 1y ago

Isn't that a good thing? When millions of people are relying on those products day in and day out, I think we don't want them to be reckless. Leave that to others.

SlightlyLeftPad 1y ago
Well, it’s a more nuanced answer. Over time, regularly squeezing 1-2% out of search results in an vastly inferior product which flips from primarily serving its users to serving its payers. Eventually, that will mean certain death as others are willing to take on bigger bolder risks. We have pretty good evidence from other long established companies that this constant pressure to extract money from products is a failing strategy.