6 ms·

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 Goo

by 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
    For those not old enough to remember, (I believe) this is the Google-Yahoo deal referenced: http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2066171/Yahoo-Partners-With-Google http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2066171/Yahoo-Partners-...
fmavituna 12y ago
You are definitely right, however the way Google became Google and stays ahead of the others is a clear exception of this. Technology matters, it matters too much that Microsoft with millions of dollars cannot build a better search engine. Microsoft would spend a billion if they knew they can do as good as Google. There are small companies as well that solely focus technical excellence. If you are going to rely on technology only then your technology shouldn't be just slightly better it should be way better than the others.
- timr 12y ago
  There have been blind user studies that show that users like Bing's results as much as Google's when the logo is removed (if not more). You don't realize it, but you're making an argument for the strength of their branding, which is at least partially (if not entirely) due to the amount Google spends to be the default search engine in just about everything. Yes, they have to have good search results, but that's far from the whole story.
  - fmavituna 12y ago
    I wonder what was the audience of those studies, to me it sounds insane that Bing is as good as Google, but maybe you are right, I'm brain-washed by the Google brand.

by timr 12y ago

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
  For those not old enough to remember, (I believe) this is the Google-Yahoo deal referenced: http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2066171/Yahoo-Partners-With-Google http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2066171/Yahoo-Partners-...

fmavituna 12y ago

You are definitely right, however the way Google became Google and stays ahead of the others is a clear exception of this. Technology matters, it matters too much that Microsoft with millions of dollars cannot build a better search engine. Microsoft would spend a billion if they knew they can do as good as Google. There are small companies as well that solely focus technical excellence. If you are going to rely on technology only then your technology shouldn't be just slightly better it should be way better than the others.

timr 12y ago
There have been blind user studies that show that users like Bing's results as much as Google's when the logo is removed (if not more). You don't realize it, but you're making an argument for the strength of their branding, which is at least partially (if not entirely) due to the amount Google spends to be the default search engine in just about everything. Yes, they have to have good search results, but that's far from the whole story.
- fmavituna 12y ago
  I wonder what was the audience of those studies, to me it sounds insane that Bing is as good as Google, but maybe you are right, I'm brain-washed by the Google brand.