8 ms·

I'm not sure how helpful this will be to a lot of new and aspiring business-owners. In my work, I've had to spend a lot of time reminding both engineers and bus

by donw 12y ago

I'm not sure how helpful this will be to a lot of new and aspiring business-owners. In my work, I've had to spend a lot of time reminding both engineers and business-types that You Are Not Google. Engineers are particularly bad on this front. I've seen teams blow huge amounts of time building massive, distributed, fail-over systems, because that's what Google does. Even though the load could be handled by a couple of dedicated boxes, and existing customers are screaming for crucial functionality. Scaling is a problem you deal with when your growth rate says you have to -- not when your servers are sitting idle, waiting for a sudden rush of customers will come any day now. There's nothing wrong trying to learn as much as you can from a bunch of smart people, but that's not the same as copying the things that they've done because "it worked for them and they're successful now". Statistically speaking, your company is probably a lot smaller than Google, and you have very different problems than Google does.

jamesaguilar 12y ago
These sorts of mistakes get made even at google. Not every product is websearch.
- donw 12y ago
  True. I think the problem is that, when blinded by the "we're going to be huuuuuuuge" mindset, it's easy to forget that shit needs to work at the small scale first.
  - jamesaguilar 12y ago
    And that taking an extra six months to get it done, or doing it 5% less well, can be a big barrier to getting huge.
- neilk 12y ago
  Especially at Google. Everything has to be ready for a billion customers on day one. While this works great for a lot of products, I contend this is one of the big reasons why they have a lot of problems with social. The great social networks find a band of early adopters who get to know each other on that system, and they all figure out what this thing is, while the dev team responds to what they do, just as fast. At least at the start, it's like a little coffeehouse that a clique discovers and makes their own, and starts holding events there. When Google launches a social product it's like going to the opening of a mall. The place is glitzy, but you're lost in the crowds.
  - donw 12y ago
    Out of pure curiosity, why couldn't Google just invite a few thousand people as a kernel to try things out? Wouldn't be that hard to find a couple of social supernodes and their friends, beween GMail and AdWords...
    - esrauch 12y ago
      This is exactly what they did with Wave and is one of the reasons why it failed; you always end up with some group of 8 people that can use the system and 2 people that can't making the entire product useless for collaboration.
    - neilk 12y ago
      My information is way out of date, but I believe most Google products are still tested that way. There's a long Googler-only incubation period for everything. And Robert Scoble was probably on Google+ months before you knew about it. The people at Google aren't stupid. They know they need to iterate with customers. But they're iterating towards a very specific event, the day when they turn it on for a billion people in 10 languages. I'm saying that very wide launch makes it kind of sterile. And the drive towards scalability-first probably prevents them from exploring quirkier ideas.
fuzzywalrus 12y ago
Based on the quotes at the bottom of the page (as there isn't any sample chapters or anything of that nature), it'll be witty businessisms and quips, much akin to the manifesto style of "Re:work" by 37 Sig... I mean basecamp. It'll probably be low on concrete advise but instead focus on a mindset.
timr 12y ago
Don't forget the other major class of engineer problems: trying to automate the Human Interaction. A lot of engineers (myself formerly included) think that Google emerged as a multi-billion dollar company directly from the head of Jeff Dean...ignoring the critical role that things like biz dev (getting that first yahoo deal!) played in their massive success. One of the hardest lessons I've had to learn in life is that success has very little to do with engineering. The technical side needs to be just good enough to work. The rest comes down to marketing and networking.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- arach 12y ago
  > One of the hardest lessons I've had to learn in life is that success has very little to do with engineering. The technical side needs to be just good enough to work. The rest comes down to marketing and networking. My understanding is that Google started getting traction because the technology savvy crowd embraced the search engine early on. This was because the search engine was built on a technology foundation that was solid and delivered great results. I think all pieces must come together to achieve success (luck being a piece) but saying engineer had little to do with Google's success doesn't seem correct to me. I disagree.
  - timr 12y ago
    Read Steven Levy's book ("Inside the Plex"). It provides an alternative narrative to the one most engineers believe. In particular, it says that Google had good early traction from technology people, but the Yahoo deal is what made them mainstream.
    - Chronic29 12y ago
      Correct. Great engineering will get you a few users. Excellent business execution will put you on the map.
    - nhstanley 12y ago
enneff 12y ago
It's particularly silly to start off that way, because Google didn't. Google was held together by spit and duct tape in the early years, and gradually evolved into what it is today.
- zhte415 12y ago
  > Google was held together by spit and duct tape in the early years Indeed. Here's a pic: http://infolab.stanford.edu/pub/voy/museum/pictures/display/0-4-Google.htm http://infolab.stanford.edu/pub/voy/museum/pictures/display/...
Rapzid 12y ago
Yeah, it's a bit like trying to explain Valve's success in terms of its dysfunctional structure(subjective, I know). If you look at stuff like Google+ and numerous misteps with gmail/hangouts you would be forgiven for mistaking Google for any other large company with enough prior successes and resources to have reached a certain "critical mass". Not sure these companies hold the secrets to repeatable success.
- slgeorge 12y ago
  HN opinion clearly isn't with you, but I think there's a lot of truth in your comment. I can think of a couple of reasons. First because all successful businesses have something that is generating a lot cash for them which means they can spend money on resources small teams cannot, and they can keep trying. In the Google case they can just keep plugging away at social. This isn't a "critical mass" but it's significant. Second because the "critical mass" is existing users and brand awareness. It's always easier to sell to an existing customer, they have experience with you and like how you operate. Just being able to easily reach the user-base that Google can is a massive leg-up. You also get the benefit of being able to add network-effect or tie things together - see the whole gmail+G+.As importantly, people trust brands (how else can you explain Starbucks!) so you're more likely to be able cross barriers to get users on-board. Users associate themselves and their values with certain brands, it makes it much easier to extend into new product categories. Everyone likes a success story, but the way that large organisations operate and their models for innovation don't apply well to small teams (in my opinion).

by donw 12y ago

jamesaguilar 12y ago

These sorts of mistakes get made even at google. Not every product is websearch.

donw 12y ago
True. I think the problem is that, when blinded by the "we're going to be huuuuuuuge" mindset, it's easy to forget that shit needs to work at the small scale first.
- jamesaguilar 12y ago
  And that taking an extra six months to get it done, or doing it 5% less well, can be a big barrier to getting huge.
neilk 12y ago
Especially at Google. Everything has to be ready for a billion customers on day one. While this works great for a lot of products, I contend this is one of the big reasons why they have a lot of problems with social. The great social networks find a band of early adopters who get to know each other on that system, and they all figure out what this thing is, while the dev team responds to what they do, just as fast. At least at the start, it's like a little coffeehouse that a clique discovers and makes their own, and starts holding events there. When Google launches a social product it's like going to the opening of a mall. The place is glitzy, but you're lost in the crowds.
- donw 12y ago
  Out of pure curiosity, why couldn't Google just invite a few thousand people as a kernel to try things out? Wouldn't be that hard to find a couple of social supernodes and their friends, beween GMail and AdWords...
  - esrauch 12y ago
    This is exactly what they did with Wave and is one of the reasons why it failed; you always end up with some group of 8 people that can use the system and 2 people that can't making the entire product useless for collaboration.
  - neilk 12y ago
    My information is way out of date, but I believe most Google products are still tested that way. There's a long Googler-only incubation period for everything. And Robert Scoble was probably on Google+ months before you knew about it. The people at Google aren't stupid. They know they need to iterate with customers. But they're iterating towards a very specific event, the day when they turn it on for a billion people in 10 languages. I'm saying that very wide launch makes it kind of sterile. And the drive towards scalability-first probably prevents them from exploring quirkier ideas.

fuzzywalrus 12y ago

Based on the quotes at the bottom of the page (as there isn't any sample chapters or anything of that nature), it'll be witty businessisms and quips, much akin to the manifesto style of "Re:work" by 37 Sig... I mean basecamp. It'll probably be low on concrete advise but instead focus on a mindset.

timr 12y ago

Don't forget the other major class of engineer problems: trying to automate the Human Interaction. A lot of engineers (myself formerly included) think that Google emerged as a multi-billion dollar company directly from the head of Jeff Dean...ignoring the critical role that things like biz dev (getting that first yahoo deal!) played in their massive success. One of the hardest lessons I've had to learn in life is that success has very little to do with engineering. The technical side needs to be just good enough to work. The rest comes down to marketing and networking.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
arach 12y ago
> One of the hardest lessons I've had to learn in life is that success has very little to do with engineering. The technical side needs to be just good enough to work. The rest comes down to marketing and networking. My understanding is that Google started getting traction because the technology savvy crowd embraced the search engine early on. This was because the search engine was built on a technology foundation that was solid and delivered great results. I think all pieces must come together to achieve success (luck being a piece) but saying engineer had little to do with Google's success doesn't seem correct to me. I disagree.
- timr 12y ago
  Read Steven Levy's book ("Inside the Plex"). It provides an alternative narrative to the one most engineers believe. In particular, it says that Google had good early traction from technology people, but the Yahoo deal is what made them mainstream.
  - Chronic29 12y ago
    Correct. Great engineering will get you a few users. Excellent business execution will put you on the map.
  - nhstanley 12y ago

enneff 12y ago

It's particularly silly to start off that way, because Google didn't. Google was held together by spit and duct tape in the early years, and gradually evolved into what it is today.

zhte415 12y ago
> Google was held together by spit and duct tape in the early years Indeed. Here's a pic: http://infolab.stanford.edu/pub/voy/museum/pictures/display/0-4-Google.htm http://infolab.stanford.edu/pub/voy/museum/pictures/display/...

Rapzid 12y ago

Yeah, it's a bit like trying to explain Valve's success in terms of its dysfunctional structure(subjective, I know). If you look at stuff like Google+ and numerous misteps with gmail/hangouts you would be forgiven for mistaking Google for any other large company with enough prior successes and resources to have reached a certain "critical mass". Not sure these companies hold the secrets to repeatable success.

slgeorge 12y ago
HN opinion clearly isn't with you, but I think there's a lot of truth in your comment. I can think of a couple of reasons. First because all successful businesses have something that is generating a lot cash for them which means they can spend money on resources small teams cannot, and they can keep trying. In the Google case they can just keep plugging away at social. This isn't a "critical mass" but it's significant. Second because the "critical mass" is existing users and brand awareness. It's always easier to sell to an existing customer, they have experience with you and like how you operate. Just being able to easily reach the user-base that Google can is a massive leg-up. You also get the benefit of being able to add network-effect or tie things together - see the whole gmail+G+.As importantly, people trust brands (how else can you explain Starbucks!) so you're more likely to be able cross barriers to get users on-board. Users associate themselves and their values with certain brands, it makes it much easier to extend into new product categories. Everyone likes a success story, but the way that large organisations operate and their models for innovation don't apply well to small teams (in my opinion).