3 ms·

I find it fascinating that Google forces some (all? most?) of their acquired companies to move to Google's infrastructure. It is proof that engineering quality

I find it fascinating that Google forces some (all? most?) of their acquired companies to move to Google's infrastructure. It is proof that engineering quality is #1 at Google, even at the cost of lost business (they had sign ups disabled for a while).

pc 18y ago
It may mean that. But it may also mean that they're intransigent.
- yan 18y ago
  "characterized by refusal to compromise or to abandon an extreme position or attitude" thanks!
ionfish 18y ago
Microsoft and Yahoo! do this too, it's hardly unique to Google (e.g. Hotmail, Viaweb).
- snprbob86 18y ago
  I work for Microsoft: I don't even use the same build tools, version control system, or issue tracking database as the people in the office next to mine. As of a recent re-org, my next door neighbors and I report to the same manager. Even before the re-org, we developed complementary products which work towards the same set of goals. I have also worked for Google: Believe me, the pervasiveness of Google's infrastructure sharing is unique.
sachinag 18y ago
But they did a better job of this when migrating YouTube. It's bizarre.
- blasdel 18y ago
  They were quite self-concious about not fucking up Youtube. They bought it because it succeeded in a way Google Video didn't even come close to. Youtube also had quite a few employees and built-up infrastructure by the time of purchase -- they weren't a tiny startup like most of Google's purchases. They didn't even move offices!
  - sgk284 18y ago
    I was working at Google when this was still going down. Pretty much what happened was YouTube came and had a little party at the Googleplex and said "Hey guys, we're growing like crazy and have tons of crazy scalability problems that Googlers love... who's game for helping out?" and if you were a Googler that was interested... you just switched roles over to Youtube. Youtube more or less just trudged along and grabbed the talent/resources from Google as they needed them. It was kind of the ideal situation for a start up... you have no monetary concerns, as soon as you need talent you can go pick from the brightest engineers in the world and have them good to go the next day, and on top of that you effectively have unlimited computing resources... which is important when you're doubling at the rate that Youtube was.

pc 18y ago

It may mean that. But it may also mean that they're intransigent.

yan 18y ago
"characterized by refusal to compromise or to abandon an extreme position or attitude" thanks!

ionfish 18y ago

Microsoft and Yahoo! do this too, it's hardly unique to Google (e.g. Hotmail, Viaweb).

snprbob86 18y ago
I work for Microsoft: I don't even use the same build tools, version control system, or issue tracking database as the people in the office next to mine. As of a recent re-org, my next door neighbors and I report to the same manager. Even before the re-org, we developed complementary products which work towards the same set of goals. I have also worked for Google: Believe me, the pervasiveness of Google's infrastructure sharing is unique.

sachinag 18y ago

But they did a better job of this when migrating YouTube. It's bizarre.

blasdel 18y ago
They were quite self-concious about not fucking up Youtube. They bought it because it succeeded in a way Google Video didn't even come close to. Youtube also had quite a few employees and built-up infrastructure by the time of purchase -- they weren't a tiny startup like most of Google's purchases. They didn't even move offices!
- sgk284 18y ago
  I was working at Google when this was still going down. Pretty much what happened was YouTube came and had a little party at the Googleplex and said "Hey guys, we're growing like crazy and have tons of crazy scalability problems that Googlers love... who's game for helping out?" and if you were a Googler that was interested... you just switched roles over to Youtube. Youtube more or less just trudged along and grabbed the talent/resources from Google as they needed them. It was kind of the ideal situation for a start up... you have no monetary concerns, as soon as you need talent you can go pick from the brightest engineers in the world and have them good to go the next day, and on top of that you effectively have unlimited computing resources... which is important when you're doubling at the rate that Youtube was.