2 ms·

>> I don't see any whining about a wrong I don't think it was a wrong decision either--hence the quotes. I think it was not easy to pull it off outside Google.

>> I don't see any whining about a wrong I don't think it was a wrong decision either--hence the quotes. I think it was not easy to pull it off outside Google. >> I see somebody saying that Google is different today from when it was back when he first made Reader I do not deny that there might have been a fundamental culture change at Google. My point, precisely, is that a culture change is orthogonal to the fundamental fact that at someone else's company, they have the ultimate control over your invention. That's one big reason people go (and went) start start-ups. This is what has never changed and it's the employee's fault if they do not realize this when they accept their employment offer. >> Clearly you're a fan of this new culture I've never accepted an offer from Google. What I said does not necessarily imply that I'm a fan of the internal culture, or would have liked new Google management better if I were an employee. I am assessing the overall vision of Google leadership and their output from the outside and believe they are doing a very good job, and the credit for a company doing well should first and foremost go to the utmost leadership. I like the new management better because they seem to have a much more coherent and focused vision, waste less resources, and while they obviously make mistakes too, overall, they have shown boldness in their actions. Even if I'm not particularly happy with the act of shutting down Google Reader, I like that they are bold and have the courage to execute what they think is right. Cutting a fairly successful product does not directly imply good leadership, but it does imply boldness which is highly correlated with good leadership.

epistasis 13y ago
> This is what has never changed and it's the employee's fault if they do not realize this when they accept their employment offer. My point is that he already realizes this. And that within one Google culture, he felt comfortable handing it all over to Google and taking advantage of all their resources and clout, and that in today's different Google culture, it's not a clearcut decision anymore, and in particular, pursuing a project that management sees as being at odds with the core mission of Google+ would probably be a bad idea. So I don't think you have any news for him, despite your initial claims.
- mehrdada 13y ago
  If his primary concern had been Google Reader staying alive, he arguably had "false sense of comfort" back then, and this is exactly what I am saying. He made a mistake in evaluating risks. The news is not for him, of course, as it would have been useless. The news is for anyone else who feels like safely innovating within a big company with _any_ culture today. There is a trade-off that you always take. Know it well when you make it. It can be much easier to leverage a big company's resources; on the other hand, your product may not follow your initial vision or get a bullet in its head. "The culture seemed cool back then so I was fooled by recruiter propaganda telling me I have control, blah, blah..." is not an excuse. EDIT: To clarify, all of this post presumed it would have been successful if he'd done it outside Google, something he seems to imply by his statement. I want to reiterate that I personally object to this very assumption, so I think he made the right trade-off, in which case, it's all fine, but he should not post a rant that implies doing it outside Google would have been catch-free.

epistasis 13y ago

> This is what has never changed and it's the employee's fault if they do not realize this when they accept their employment offer. My point is that he already realizes this. And that within one Google culture, he felt comfortable handing it all over to Google and taking advantage of all their resources and clout, and that in today's different Google culture, it's not a clearcut decision anymore, and in particular, pursuing a project that management sees as being at odds with the core mission of Google+ would probably be a bad idea. So I don't think you have any news for him, despite your initial claims.

mehrdada 13y ago
If his primary concern had been Google Reader staying alive, he arguably had "false sense of comfort" back then, and this is exactly what I am saying. He made a mistake in evaluating risks. The news is not for him, of course, as it would have been useless. The news is for anyone else who feels like safely innovating within a big company with _any_ culture today. There is a trade-off that you always take. Know it well when you make it. It can be much easier to leverage a big company's resources; on the other hand, your product may not follow your initial vision or get a bullet in its head. "The culture seemed cool back then so I was fooled by recruiter propaganda telling me I have control, blah, blah..." is not an excuse. EDIT: To clarify, all of this post presumed it would have been successful if he'd done it outside Google, something he seems to imply by his statement. I want to reiterate that I personally object to this very assumption, so I think he made the right trade-off, in which case, it's all fine, but he should not post a rant that implies doing it outside Google would have been catch-free.